Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Investment (OECD Multilateral Agreement)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. David Chaytor: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for enabling this debate to take place this morning. I am pleased that so many hon. Members have chosen to attend, because it has to be said that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development multilateral agreement on investment is not the stuff of soundbite politics, nor a topic that preoccupies many people. Nevertheless, it is a matter that has profound implications for millions of people in this country and throughout the world, so it is important that we now start a wider public debate on the subject.
I do not claim any specialist knowledge of the MAI—far from it—but I have concerns about the process by which the MAI has been negotiated and progressed so far. That process has been largely shrouded in secrecy, which is reflected in the references to the agreement made in the House over the past few months: no major debate, a small memorandum to a Select Committee, and only a handful of parliamentary questions. It is also reflected in the complete lack of understanding of the agreement and its implications among the public at large and the limited press coverage of the subject over the past 18 months.
I sought today's debate to ensure that understanding of the MAI is more widely disseminated and to enable a serious public debate to be started. In its current draft form, the agreement—negotiated largely in secret, originally due for completion two months ago but now postponed until 1998 and little understood by anyone in any of the countries to which it relates—is capable of having the most profound effects on the lives of men and women in every country.
The MAI is a free-standing international treaty on the protection and liberalisation of international investment, including direct equity and portfolio investment. It has been negotiated solely by the 29 OECD countries, but will be open to non-members. I understand that Argentina, Chile, Slovakia and Hong Kong are scheduled to be invited to join in the first wave. Negotiations on the MAI started in 1995 and were the culmination of many years of discussion about establishing an agreement on international investment. They were scheduled to finish in May 1997; however, the complexity of the treaty and the number of exemptions that countries have now started to file mean that the date for signature has been put back until May 1998.
The MAI aims to promote a non-discriminatory system of global investment regulation. Each party to the agreement commits itself to certain conditions: first, not to treat foreign investors worse than domestic investors or exclude them from any sector not covered by a specific exemption. That means, however, that foreign investors may be treated better than local investors. Secondly, the parties agree to extend any advantage given to one country's investor to all countries in the MAI. Thirdly, they agree not to expropriate investments, either directly or by changes in taxation or regulation, including environmental regulations, without full market-rate convertible currency compensation. Fourthly, countries promise not to restrict profit repatriation, even when experiencing severe balance of payments problems. Fifthly, they agree not to apply any restrictions on incoming investors in respect of technology transfer, joint ownership, local employment, local purchasing, export levels, production into local markets and employment of personnel.
The aim of the MAI is to roll back existing legislation, so that all sectors are open to inward investment. Parties will agree not to introduce any new discriminatory laws, and will then register a list of exemptions for national laws. That process of registering exemptions has been one of the main reasons why the completion of the negotiations has now been deferred for another 12 months. I understand that 500 pages of exemptions have now been registered, covering sectors such as air and maritime transport, natural resources and fishing, forestry, mining, oil and gas, toxic waste disposal and competition laws.
Finally, the rules will be enforced by binding international arbitration. Disputes can be initiated not only by states but by private investors, and they will apply both to existing investments and to attempts to enter a country. The international tribunal will be able to order states to reform their laws so as to be in compliance with the MAI; and to pay compensation to the affected investor. States cannot, however, use the tribunal to enforce reciprocal duties on investors under the MAI.
Those negotiations must be seen in a context in which foreign investment increased by 800 per cent. between 1983 and 1990, and in a single year, 1994–95, by a staggering 46 per cent. Significantly, however, most of that investment is concentrated in the three major economic powers—Europe, Japan and north America. Over the past 10 years, 70 per cent. of all foreign direct investment has gone to just 10 countries. By contrast, the 48 least well-developed countries, with a combined population of 570 million, have received a mere 3 per cent. of global investment in the past two decades.
Of the $100 billion invested in developing countries, two thirds goes to south-east Asia, with China being the principal beneficiary. In recent years, investment in sub-Saharan Africa amounted to less than 1 per cent. of its gross domestic product. The potential, therefore, for rapid expansion of foreign direct investment in the poorest countries is enormous; and it is partly to prepare the ground for it that the MAI is being negotiated.
The anxiety is that with that enormous growth in foreign direct investment, and the explosive growth in currency markets—they are now trading $1 trillion a day—the fear of losing investment will force Governments to lower environmental and social standards. That is a serious issue for countries already


receiving investment. It is an even more dramatic dilemma for countries desperately trying to get on the first rung of the ladder of international investment. The costs of that race to the bottom—the race to lower standards—will be borne by workers, whose health, standards of living and security of employment will be put at risk. They will also be borne by future generations, as Governments use short-term gain to strip out the natural resources of the world today.
There can be no disagreement about the fact that an international treaty on investment is necessary. The current patchwork quilt of bilateral agreements is unsatisfactory and arguably leads to investment being concentrated in so-called safe countries. The issue therefore is: what should such an international investment agreement contain? A major concern is that the current draft agreement, although arguably non-contentious for a limited number of broadly similar western economies, contains serious limitations when it is extended, as is the intention, to developing countries. There are always likely to be conflicts between transnational corporations investing in developing countries and the objectives of the host countries. Those, however, can be resolved by careful framing of regulations.
The MAI will effectively transfer a new area of national development policy from national Governments to unelected multinational corporations, which will remain free to act in their own interests—without obligations to observe any form of minimum standards with regard to public welfare, the environment or fair business practices.
The fundamental principles of the MAI are in clear conflict with existing non-binding agreements signed by Governments at the Earth summit and subsequently at more recent summits. Contrary to those agreements, the MAI promotes liberalisation of capital as an end in itself, instead of attaching priority to combating poverty and protecting the environment, and protecting workers, consumers, indigenous cultures and other vulnerable groups.
Compounding that tendency, the MAI establishes a one-way dispute mechanism that extends economic powers into the political arena, including the right of foreign investors to take Governments and local authorities to an international tribunal, where they can challenge host country laws. Here again, there is no corresponding right of Governments or their citizens to take action against investing multinationals that breach international agreements.
The scale of the operations of the world's 40,000 multinational corporations is staggering. The top 500 multinationals, 95 per cent. of which are located in OECD countries, account for 80 per cent of foreign investment and 70 per cent. of world trade. Annual sales of the eight largest multinationals exceed the GDP of the 50 poorest countries, which contain more than half the world's population.
The priority for international regulation must be to harness the power of those transnational corporations for the sustainable and equitable development of host countries. Agreement on their responsibilities should precede any further strengthening of their rights.
Another concern is that non-OECD countries—a majority of the world's countries—have not been involved in the current negotiations, but will be invited to accede

to the final agreement. The MAI is already being promoted as a stamp of approval for foreign investors. For most of the developing world, with few options for economic development, the pressures to sign will be irresistible. The MAI will take international economic liberalisation to its next stage. The world's poorest countries have already been persuaded to lower their tariff barriers under the general agreement on tariffs and trade Uruguay round and to concentrate on export-oriented commodities, under various structural adjustment programmes.
The outcome for many of the poorest countries has been disastrous. In the first half of the 1990s, people in 19 of the world's 51 poorest countries have watched their living standards fall as commodity prices have fallen, because of over-supply. Meanwhile, employment in the formal sector has declined in the face of international competition and International Monetary Fund-enforced cuts in Government spending. As a result, the number of people living in poverty throughout the world has reached unprecedented heights.
The MAI will take away further powers of Government over economic policy making. Those powers have been important in the development of most OECD countries, to protect the public from the negative impact of foreign investment, and to stsengthen links between foreign investment and local economies. Ironically, the OECD countries that have benefited from those powers in the past now seek to deny them to today's developing countries.
In recent months, many organisations have expressed concern about the progress of the MAI; I should like to refer to two of them. Christian Aid has produced a statement identifying the weaknesses in the agreement. It says that rights should go with responsibilities and calls for corporations to apply the same high standards wherever they do business in the world, using clean and appropriate technologies and respecting local development needs. Christian Aid says that investment should be long term and productive, and calls for new mechanisms to be developed to restrain speculative investment. Under the MAI, it says, host Governments should be permitted and encouraged to develop policies to meet those goals. Finally, the organisation calls for the development of mechanisms that will encourage investment to reach the poorest countries and, inside those countries, ensure that investment is available to small-scale entrepreneurs and businesses, via micro-credit schemes.
Oxfam has also criticised the current draft agreement. In its view, the MAI needs to be amended to promote forms of international investment that benefit communities and the environment. First, there should be greater transparency and consultation in the negotiation process. Secondly, investment decisions should be made democratically accountable: citizens and communities should have the right to bring claims directly against investors who breach international agreements. Thirdly, investor rights should be balanced with obligations to comply with international labour, environmental and consumer standards. Fourthly, there should be regulation of anti-competitive behaviour and restrictive business practice and there should be common rules for financial incentives and taxation.
Many alternative recommendations for inclusion in the MAI have been considered. Some people have argued that there should be regulations positively to prevent the weakening of environmental standards, to ensure that none of the provisions of the MAI conflicts with existing international agreements, to include references to public information on companies' activities, to take steps to prevent corruption of public authorities in the award of contracts to foreign investors and, most important, to prevent the use of transfer pricing as a means of avoiding local taxation.
At the heart of the issue lies globalisation. What type of future do we want for the planet? Do we believe that unrestrained free-market capitalism alone can achieve the social, environmental and economic objectives that are increasingly shared by the peoples of the world—good housing, good education, decent health care and freedom from the fear of unemployment and from environmental degradation?
I suspect that many people are coming to believe that our love affair with the idea of globalisation is entering a difficult period, as more and more voices warn of the dangers of the limitations of the free market in serving social purposes, and of the social and environmental limits to economic growth. Do we really believe that simply exporting all the features of western civilisation to countries with a markedly different history and culture represents the ideal way forward for the world in the 21st century?
The problem with the MAI as it stands is that it provides for an unprecedented shift in power from national Governments—and sometimes loose federations of national Governments—pursuing a range of social, environmental and economic objectives, to transnational corporations with one objective only. It creates new rights for transnational corporations, but says nothing about their responsibilities. It leaves responsibility with national Governments, but takes away their rights.
In the past few weeks, we have had a new Government in the United Kingdom, who have made welcome statements about many aspects of our overseas relationships. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made a statement, outlining an ethical foreign policy. A new Department of International Development has been established, which has promised a new approach to development issues.
Many people want the Department of Trade and Industry to follow those leads. Many people want the DTI to integrate its policy making with that of the Department of International Development. In addition to an ethical foreign policy, we should develop an ethical investment policy.
The current draft of the MAI gives enormous additional powers to the transnational corporations, 95 per cent. of which are housed in OECD countries. It enables them to sustain their operations and further entrench their power with minimal reference to the working conditions of the indigenous labour forces that they employ, the long-term impact on the environment in which they operate and their impact on the local economies of the countries into which they relocate.
We are proud to say that the new Labour Government have placed at the heart of their policy making the importance of the balance between rights and

responsibilities. During the next few months, as negotiations on the MAI continue, there will be an opportunity to propose amendments containing powerful and effective conditions, to protect against the exploitation of labour and the destruction of the natural environment, to prevent the destabilisation of local economies throughout the world as a result of speculative investment and to endorse the principles of sustainable development.
We have a unique opportunity to establish a balance between rights and responsibilities in a way that will benefit the lives of millions of people for many years to come.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on initiating the debate and advancing his arguments compellingly. I regret the absence of any Conservative Member who is prepared to make a contribution to the debate—after all, the Conservative party is supposedly the party of globalisation and the free market. I suppose that the Tories are all getting ready for their grouse shooting or fox hunting, or whatever they now do in their spare time.
I have considerable personal interest in the subject of the debate because I spent a goodly part of my life tramping around bits of the world and witnessing the effect of multinational companies on local economies and societies. That experience may have caused me to adopt a slightly different perspective from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. On the whole, I found that trade, the freer the better, is a good thing because, as the eminent socialist economist Joan Robinson once said, if there is one thing worse than being exploited by a multinational, it is not being exploited by a multinational.
Multinational companies are one of the most powerful vectors of the so-called north-south dialogue. I caution speakers in the debate before they counterpoise the all-puissant multinational and the robust democratic national Government because, in many parts of the world in which I worked, it was the national Government who were corrupt and dictatorial, creaming off as much money as possible and imposing labour and environmental standards that did immense damage to their people.

Mr. Alan Clark: Hear, hear.

Mr. MacShane: I wish that Conservative Members would go off fox hunting and leave the debate to Labour Members, as we are the only ones who are interested.
Multinationals suffer far more public opprobrium and pressure than some third-world dictatorships. Just ask the chairmen of Shell, British Petroleum, or Nike in America, who find their annual general meetings invaded by campaigners on these issues. I wish that one could bring as much pressure to bear on some of the national Governments who are host to multinational companies.
We should not forget that multinational companies and the overseas flows of foreign direct investment largely represent our money—our pension fund money, our savings, our investments, local authority workers' savings and miners' savings. If we want to control the way in which that money is used, we should ask ourselves why,


given that it is our money, we do not in our own countries effect sufficient controls to ensure that it is guided to proper and decent uses.
I believe that the multilateral agreement on investment comes down to a simple premise, "Do as you would be done by." In other words, to use another bit of trade jargon, it erects most-favoured nation status as a rule for investment, so that Governments must treat any company entering their country exactly as they would treat indigenous or national companies. If there is a problem concerning environmental and labour rights, which there is—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North spoke about it and I know that other hon. Friends will speak about it, because they are passionately concerned—the answer is to insist that national Governments impose appropriate laws, regulations and inspection systems, on the green front, on the front of child labour and so on.
What must not be permitted under the MAI, however, is for a Government—perhaps I do not want to name any specific Governments, but there are ones where the first families are known as Mr. and Mrs. Ten per cent.—

Mr. Clark: Name them.

Mr. MacShane: They are called that because that is the percentage that they take for their Swiss bank accounts—something on which the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) is an expert.

Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman should elaborate on that remark. He is making an interesting speech, to which I am paying great attention. He started it by saying that there were no Conservatives in the Chamber because they had all gone fox hunting, which is a slightly bizarre exhortation in the month of July, but we shall pass that by. He then said that he wished that Conservatives on the Opposition Benches would go off fox hunting. Does he want us here or not? Are we to have a proper debate, or does he wish to banish us to our field sports, of which, as he well knows, I have long been a consistent opponent?

Mr. MacShane: I am glad that there is one month a year in which the poor foxes are allowed to live. However, I welcome the contribution that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will make to the debate in due course.
Let me return to the fundamental point: it is important and necessary for countries across the world to accept fair treatment of all investments coming into them, whether national or foreign direct. That is the core essence of the MAI. Many groups are rightly worried that they are being excluded from the negotiations and that their point of view is not being heard. However, the underlying principle, which we are now seeing in many different spheres of economic and environmental activity, of seeking to secure international regulations for problems that are no longer resolvable within the national framework, is good.
I very much welcome the new tone of the Government, who are stressing the importance of eliminating child labour, in stark contrast to the previous Government, who refused to join the United States and other allies in ensuring that issues such as child labour were placed on the agenda at the World Trade Organisation summit in

Singapore last December. That was a shaming moment for our country, and the new approach of the Labour Government is to be welcomed. The need for wider international agreement will continue to have to engage Government Departments—both the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments such as the Foreign Office and the new Department of International Development.
I hope that the new mandate given to our negotiators in Paris will acknowledge the consistent hard work being done by non-governmental organisations representing green and employee interests, to put their concerns before the MAI negotiators and to insist that binding agreements covering those issues are included in the new agreement when it is finally settled. Let us not be too optimistic, however, because in addition to the 500 exemptions that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North mentioned, I understand that the United States is demanding that the MAI should apply to none of the 50 states within the US. That makes a complete mockery of it—one rule for American multinationals in Latin America, but another for those in Wisconsin or Colorado, which can take no notice of the MAI in respect of British or Korean firms that enter their arena.
The French are demanding that culture be exempted. That is what the French are there for, but they are right to insist that their culture is not totally taken over by Hollywood, McDonald's or others who would reduce all national cultures to an American homogenised sludge.
I am therefore not convinced that all the grand international negotiations about which people get very excited and worked up will leave us next May faced with a new straitjacket or iron maiden, which will clamp around us and cause the terrible things that are being threatened.
I urge hon. Members not to counterpoise the green agenda with what I might call the human agenda. Most of the lobbying on that has been done by extremely energetic organisations representing different aspects of the new green movement, whether it is on nature itself or on animal rights. I am more concerned about the massive growth in child labour and the massive denial of workers organising and representing themselves in different countries. The worst kind of protectionism is not the unacceptable protectionism based around tariffs and quotas, but the protectionism of national Governments who seek to protect their own firms and foreign firms coming in from their own citizens' right to set up organisations to negotiate on their behalf, so that they earn a fair share of the value that they add to the products and services that they produce.
The OECD already has useful guidelines on multinational companies. They were set up in 1976 under the leadership of a Labour Government, but alas remained, if not a dead, a somewhat somnolent letter, particularly during the dark years of ideological free trade of the 1980s. Now that we have new Governments in America, France and this country, and democratic Governments in far more parts of the world, who seek to reflect and satisfy the needs of all of society, not just the needs of special interests, the OECD guidelines could be brought back into play. There is on the table in Paris a proposal for clauses that would ensure that existing standards on environmental or labour issues were not lowered under the new MAI. The countries involved, however, are split: 11 of them in the debate at the


beginning of this month favoured the inclusion of a binding clause on environmental and labour issues, while 11 favoured simply leaving that at a voluntary level. Even a voluntary level, which does not satisfy me, is a step in the right direction, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure us that the British representatives will be among the 11 who want a binding clause. That is the way forward. We should not set national Governments in competition or opposition against multinational companies. That is not so much tilting at windmills; it is rather like the Polish cavalry charging at Panzer battalions.
I am afraid that there are definitely new economic developments that flow round the powers of the nation state. That tide will not be turned back. Our task for the 21st century is to create at international level the rules and regulations that reflect the needs of democracy, humankind and full respect for the environment.
Let us not simply say no to the MAI, because the world will just ignore that appeal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North argued, and as I hope the Minister will argue, let us work to ensure an alliance with other countries, so that the MAI and other international trade and investment agreements that will be debated in forthcoming years place at their forefront, on a par with the economic rights of companies, the rights of human beings and the environment.

Mr. Eric Forth: The intriguing feature of these occasions is that if we are not careful there is a danger that a small number of hon. Members come along clutching briefs prepared by well-meaning organisations and deliver them to an empty House. That is always to be regretted. These are proper debates, properly held in this House, and they should therefore carry all the weight that goes with that phenomenon.
It will embarrass the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) if I say that I agreed with the measured tone of his speech. I hope that it will set a framework for this debate because he tried to strike a proper balance between what are often wrongly seen as competing interests rather than as interests which should naturally go together.
I shall make two or three brief points as a contribution to the debate. First, there is a danger that we tend to bring a latter-day imperialism to such a debate. We have a view of the world that is well meaning and informed by the sort of groups mentioned earlier, but which may or may not be relevant to the countries that those groups and hon. Members are seeking to help.
I have always been suspicious of the proposition that we in wealthy western Europe, mollycoddled by our international organisations and protected by the European Union and our membership of the OECD, have something that is necessarily relevant to say about different cultures, different traditions and very different stages of economic development. We should be careful to guard against such an assumption.
That leads directly to a second problem, to which the hon. Member for Rotherham referred. A glib assumption is often made that Governments in what we rather patronisingly call underdeveloped, developing or third-world countries are sufficiently pure and

knowledgeable that they know what is good for their own people, and that if we involve them or leave matters to them, all will be well.
Experience in all too many countries suggests just the opposite. It is possible, as the hon. Member for Rotherham pointed out, that the involvement of even a transnational or a multinational company in a developing country might be a greater force for the good or the better of the people of that country than their Government would be in providing investment and employment. It must be a matter for those Governments to make a judgment about the basis on which they would welcome—or not—investment into their own countries.
One of the great dangers of debates such as this is that we succumb to a rather easily patronising or latter-day imperialistic view of the world, believing that we know what is good for everyone else and that we should set about telling them that, at the risk of undermining aspects of their economic development—the very thing that we say that we want to improve.
The third issue is the assumption underlying the opening speech of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) that we, or—worse still—bureaucrats and politicians combined, know better where investment should go than those who are making the investment. I have been in the political business long enough to have more than a touch of suspicion about the knowledge and wisdom of politicians and occasionally, dare I say it, of officials and bureaucrats.
I do not have a starry-eyed view of the world of business and commerce. Of course they have their priorities, but what benefits businesses and their shareholders and employees often tends to benefit the wider community within which they operate, perhaps more so than the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats, whether in Paris, Geneva or the capital cities of the countries receiving the investment.
We should be careful before uttering a string of good-sounding clichés to solve all the problems. If we examine the speeches that have already been made and, I would not mind betting, those still to be made, we shall find an extremely high cliché content. They will contain words such as environmental protection, partnership, co-operation and all the other things to which we are supposed to pay lip service, which sound good but which, when subjected to detailed analysis, mean precious little.
I hesitate to keep quoting, but as the hon. Member for Rotherham suggested, we must find a sensible way of bringing together business interests, shareholder interests, employee interests, international development and global flows of money and investment, to meet the aims and aspirations of countries that are highly developed and those that have yet to enjoy economic development. That is surely the way ahead.
From the description of the international agreement that we heard, it sounds to me as though it provides a good basis from which to start. We should try to move it this way or that, rather than to tear it down. I hope that the tone of the debate will continue in the way that it is developing, and that contributors will offer specific suggestions about how the agreement could be made to work better, rather than a string of meaningless clichés.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the opportunity for this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on gaining it and on his opening remarks.
It is strange that a major development such as the multilateral agreement on investment, which has enormous implications for every citizen of the planet, should have to be debated in an Adjournment debate in the House and, I suspect, is not being debated at all in many other Parliaments, although its implications go far and wide.
The MAI proposal is a charter for multinational corporations, unaccountable and unelected, to behave as they wish around the world, to the destruction of the environment, the damaging of living standards and the aggrandisement of their own profits, all of which will eventually be repatriated to the OECD countries where those companies originate.
We must take seriously the issues of democracy and accountability around the world. Fifteen or 20 years ago a number of countries tried hard to curtail or control the power of multinational corporations. The Governments who tried to do that found themselves facing the wrath of the International Monetary Fund and the international bankers and were unable to proceed.
I well remember the way in which the Government of Jamaica were removed in 1979 by the IMF because they opposed the power of multinational corporations. I remember the coup in Chile in 1973, which occurred for the same reason—because the Government opposed multinational corporations. I remember the Government of Guatemala being removed in 1954 because they opposed the power of the United Fruit Company. The list is endless.
It is sad that the United Nations, having aimed to be a democratic institution and to promote such good agreements as the Rio agreement and, more recently, the New York summit on the environment, has turned its back on the issues of economic democracy. After the Rio summit the UN closed down the multinational corporations office and has sought to hand over its economic thinking to the World bank and the IMF.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) complained—strangely, for a Conservative—about the northern European imperialistic view of the world, which I do not share or recognise. He was concerned about well-meaning organisations in the north, as he so charmingly put it, which try to advise the rest of the world. I was not aware that he was an active supporter of Oxfam, the World Wide Fund for Nature or other such organisations.

Mr. Forth: I am not.

Mr. Corbyn: That is okay, then—I was slightly worried for a moment.
So as not to be accused of taking part in some northern neo-colonial attempt to control the rest of the world, I will quote from a document produced by the Third World Network, an interesting organisation based in Penang, Malaysia, which seeks to bring together nongovernmental organisations within what we choose to call third-world countries to examine the impact of

multinational corporations and their operations on the environment, living standards, labour conditions, child labour and so on around the world.
The Third World Network summarises the aims of the MAI as follows:
The right of entry and establishment of foreign companies in almost all sectors, except security"—
which means that Governments lose authority to determine what a foreign investor can do—
The right to full equity ownership"—
which means that Governments would not be allowed to impose a condition that foreign companies should allow a portion of their equity to be owned locally or form joint ventures with local firms. With reference to national treatment, the foreign company must be treated on exactly equal terms with local companies.

Mr. MacShane: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has been in Penang, but I have. German multinational companies there would like to give trade union recognition to their employees, as they do in Germany, but are forbidden to do so by the Government. Oddly, under the MAI that Government rule could not apply.
Is my hon. Friend further aware that women workers in Penang who are employed by Bosch and Siemens escaped from the patriarchal oppression of village life, where they are treated little better than slaves? Does he agree that there are times when multinationals can help to liberate people from the difficulties and oppression to which they would otherwise be condemned?

Mr. Corbyn: I must admit that I have never noticed the charitable nature of multinational corporations in their activities around the world, to which my hon. Friend refers. I am concerned that multinational corporations behave in a manner that is unaccountable to national Governments of any country. They have the power to control the destiny of whole economies and entire peoples. If all national Governments are told that they must treat multinational corporations in the same way as they treat local companies, they cannot provide for local initiatives or promote the development of local co-ops at the expense of multinationals. The MAI would also protect the rights of foreign investors as to intellectual property, physical property speculation and land ownership. National Governments simply cannot enter the argument about developing economies for the benefit of local people rather than of transnational corporations if they are forced to join the MAI.
The notion that improving foreign investment in the third world will put everything right flies in the face of reality in many countries. In 1995, the deputy Finance Minister of Malaysia said:
The rise in the trade deficit is mainly due to an increase in the import of capital goods brought in by foreign investors. If not for foreign investments in 1995, Malaysia would have recorded a large excess in the trade account.
He, and many others, are concerned that multinational companies pay little regard to developing the local economy: they are interested only in their own global development and improvement.

Mr. Forth: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's comments. He seems to believe that a temporary trade surplus is a more desirable objective for developing


Governments than the benefits of long-term investment, which may flow from the temporary importing of capital goods. That is a rather odd set of priorities for the hon. Gentleman, of all people, to espouse.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that long-term investment can disappear after three years. Governments have no control over what happens to such investment or over the repatriation of profits. My point is that the involvement of multinational corporations in Malaysia is not necessarily wholly beneficial to the local economy, as its Finance Minister pointed out. He is particularly concerned about those companies' purchasing practices, but there is nothing that he or any other Finance Minister in any developing country can do about it if they sign the MAI.
As to poverty in the world's poorest countries, the World Development Movement has highlighted an interesting quotation from the Ugandan Finance Minister, Basoga Nsadhu. He pointed out that African countries were put under enormous pressure to introduce democracy, structural adjustment programmes, liberalisation and privatisation. They were told that if that happened they would receive the investment and the advantages that they needed, but they have not received those benefits: instead, they are under constant pressure to repay a debt that is unpayable because of the way in which it was incurred and because they have no control over interest rates or oil and commodity prices.
In this debate, I would prefer to see hon. Members addressing the problems of environmental stability and poverty on the planet and the need for an inclusive economic strategy involving the poorest people in the poorest countries. I do not believe that the MAI will address any of those problems because the multinational corporations are not of that ilk.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) referred to labour rights and conditions, and I agree with him, but why do the MAI and the World Trade Organisation not insist upon every country's implementing the absolute minimum of International Labour Organisation conditions? They do not propose to do that. Multinational corporations tend to operate to the lowest common denominator in every country. The MAI will make illegal any attempt to impose trade union rights as the basis for investment by multinational companies. That would have many repercussions.
In the latter part of the 20th century, we should address issues of poverty and accountability around the world and the need for technology transfer. All countries were represented at the Rio conference in 1992 because the world recognised that there were limits to growth and to exploitation of the natural environment, which had climatic implications. Five years on, the overseas aid has not been provided and the technology transfers that could have helped to lower pollution in poorer countries have not occurred. Liberalisation of trade has increased air and sea pollution and the dumping of toxic and other waste in poorer countries, where disposal is cheaper than in northern countries.
The New York environment summit almost collapsed because of the intellectual property rights issue. Northern countries, acting on behalf of multinational corporations, refused to agree to transfer the necessary technology to poorer countries to enable them to introduce refrigeration

systems and vehicles that are less polluting. The OECD countries are absolutely determined that the only model that matters is the power of multinational corporations to go where they will, invest where they will and produce what they will—indeed, to run the world's economy.
Surely to God, at the end of this century, we should look for some form of global arrangement that provides for democracy and the transfer of wealth from the richest to the poorest rather than vice versa. We should surely not sign a charter that gives multinational corporations everything they want and diminishes the power of democratically elected Governments to take action to control the activities of those companies in exploiting and damaging the environment.
Ultimately, the agreement may be signed. However, many people around the world simply do not accept the global economic argument. Those in the rain forests of Latin America do not accept that multinationals have the right to destroy their rivers and forests, and they are fighting back. People in India are determined to fight the World Trade Organisation. We close our eyes to opposition to the idea of the global free market because we do not want to know about it, but such opposition is growing fast.
I hope that the House will at least recognise that the MAI is not a step forwards, but a step backwards and a step away from any form of regulation. It is a step towards giving multinational corporations everything they want, and, at the end of the day, we shall pay the price—just like the people of the poorest countries in the world.

Mr. Tony Colman: I must declare an interest as chair of the United Kingdom Standing Committee on Local Authority Pension Funds and of Church, Charity and Local Authority Fund Managers Ltd. In that context, I am a former manager of a multinational. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on securing the debate, on a subject which is extremely important not only in this country but throughout the world.
I begin by complimenting the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is not in the Chamber, who made a very interesting speech at Earth summit 2 last month, a copy of which I believe should be placed in the Library. He referred to the multilateral agreement on investment and the World Trade Organisation, and pointed out clearly that the issues relating to the Rio treaty and process and sustainable development had moved away from the United Nations to the World Trade Organisation and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. He expressed concern on behalf of all hon. Members—it is interesting that, in the spirit of a new Labour Government, the right hon. Gentleman was a member of that delegation—about the somewhat secret treaty that is being negotiated behind closed doors. He said that it should be brought into the open and become part of the United Nations process.
I support the idea of an international treaty covering the matters that the MAI should be discussing—market access, legal security and those dealing with corruption—but it must be on the essence of sustainable development. The language of Rio, which has been so strongly negotiated around the world, should be within any agreement on investment worldwide.
As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), there were real problems at Earth summit 2 in New York. There was particular concern not only about the basis of the transfer of intellectual property rights, but about transfers of investment. I remind the House that the public sector flows that were committed to at Rio have not been achieved. In fact, there has been a dramatic reduction, and the only basis on which this could be made up is through the private sector flows which have increased dramatically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North pointed out. If we are looking to a combination of public-private partnership in terms of sustainable development, it must be within terms that are acceptable to the United Nations and to the families of nations on this earth.
One of my opponents at the last general election was Sir James Goldsmith, who died last Saturday. I am sure that the condolences of the House go to his family. I owe a great deal to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who pointed out the differences in "The Trap", a book written by Sir James, in terms of his views on the European Union. The one thing to which he devoted the last 10 years of his life was very much pointing out the effect on the environment, on world issues, of allowing multinationals to do what they will, untrammelled, across the world. I pay tribute to his brother, Edward Goldsmith, who perhaps woke up to this rather earlier than he did. I wish that more people would speak out on this. The chairman of BP made a very impressive speech in June on the same subject.
One of the outcomes of the social summit in 1995 was that the World bank was required to have environmental and social impact assessments. I believe that the MAI should take that on board, as that proposal would have the support of the International Chamber of Commerce, which represents most multinationals across the world. My experience of UK multinationals—I declare my interest as a former manager for Unilever in Africa—is good. We would wish the House to ensure that the DTI, in its new spirit of working with UK multinationals, will perhaps take them on board in discussing how the MAI should be changed.
I shall pick up two points that are in the MAI, the first of which is about prohibiting the hiring of local personnel. One of the great successes of Unilever in the 1960s and 1970s was the movement to local personnel, so that people were not being flown in from the north, from Europe, with cultural standards and interests that did not reflect local concerns. I shall be very concerned if the final MAI has restrictions on the hiring of local personnel.
My second point is about prohibiting any restrictions in terms of local content in the manufacture of products. Again, it is very important that we support incipient industries and build up industries in the developing world. I commend the work of UK pension funds on investing. I suggest that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who has now left the Chamber, remembers that a number of shareholders are members of the pension funds that I represent. I am concerned that he should understand that people today do not wish to see exploitation and environmental degradation as the basis on which they achieve a pension fund in the future. It is quite possible—the Methodist Church has shown this over

the past 15 years—to achieve a high rate of return, which is important for future pensions, by ensuring that the social and environmental risks are dealt with and adjusting the investment to take account of that.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to place in the Library a copy of the MAI in its draft form, and further copies as new drafts come forward. Will my hon. Friend, or other Ministers, be able to report to the House regularly on the progress of the negotiations? Finally, I ask her to seek to move the whole negotiation away from the OECD to the United Nations to ensure that this is a UN agreement based on sustainable development and agenda 21.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I realise that we are running out of time, so I shall try to condense my remarks.
I do not support—and would not want to be associated in any way with—the sentiments that welcome the introduction of the multilateral agreement on investment. It is one of the most unprincipled and disgraceful documents that I have come across. I shall try to highlight the profound and threatening consequences that would follow from it.
The agreement is genuinely revolutionary in the sense that it would for the first time place the rights of companies above those of countries and the rights of shareholders above those of citizens. No reciprocal rights are built into the agreement. It would give companies the right to sue countries and shareholders the right to sue citizens, but not the reverse. A surrender of national sovereignty has been written into the agreement, which has truly frightening implications. It is a crooks charter of an agreement. I shall identify just four of the points that really alarm me.
One of the conditions written into the MAI is a charter for rogue employers. The MAI says that a country that joins cannot
impose, enforce or maintain any of the following requirements, or enforce any commitment or undertaking in connection with the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, operation, or conduct
of a foreign investment.
What goes out of the window are obligations a country may impose that require local labour agreements, minimum wage agreements, technology transfer obligations, joint ventures such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned, and all commitments to equal opportunities obligations that are incumbent on a foreign investor moving into a country.
The agreement also scuppers the basis for environmental constraints, because it is a polluters charter. It says:
A contracting Party shall not expropriate or nationalize directly or indirectly an investment … or take any measure or measures having equivalent effect … except for a purpose which is in the public interest … accompanied by payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation".
I should point out that an American company is already threatening to sue Canada for placing environmental constraints on its parent company, which produces a toxic chemical in Canada. The environmental constraints are seen as a form of indirect expropriation of shareholders' rights.


The panoply of environmental protection that has been built up around the world would be removed. Taiwan has restrictions on highly polluting industries. Colombia places restrictions on the processing and disposal of toxic or radioactive waste. The Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Venezuela place restrictions on banking, insurance and publishing or culturally sensitive industries. A panoply of nationally imposed restrictions on industrial investment would no longer be legal national rights of democratically elected Governments.
The agreement is also a speculators charter. Another clause says:
Each contracting Party shall ensure that all payments relating to an investment in its territory of an investor of another Contracting Party may be freely transferred into and out of its territory without delay.
Hon. Members may recall the monetary crisis in Mexico, which was fuelled by the ability to move money out quickly. It appears that, under the MAI, such rights will be enshrined and made international in ways that are clearly not reciprocal.
Another part of the agreement makes it clear that any country that signs up must give five years' notice before coming out and will continue for 15 years to have legal obligations to the companies that have invested in it. Speculators can take their money out overnight, but countries cannot reclaim their right to national self-determination within what may turn out to be the truncated life of a generation.
The fourth part of my indictment of the agreement is that it is clearly an exploiters charter. It states that a country cannot impose sanctions or deny benefits
because of investments an investor of another contracting party makes, owns or controls, directly or indirectly, in a third country".
What that really means is, "If you object to the use of slave labour elsewhere, tough. If you object to the use of child labour, hard luck. If you object to the use of convict labour by a corporation, hard luck again." No such considerations can be taken into account in the determination or imposition of constraints on the investment package.
That puts us on the spot, as a Labour Government picking up the strands of what was constructed by what could almost be described as a monetary fundamentalist Conservative Government. It would make a mockery of Labour's commitments to a principled, ethical framework for our foreign policy if we had to say, "You will get child labour under the Labour party. You will get slave labour under the Labour party. And you will get convict labour under the Labour party," because we had signed an agreement giving nations no ability to take action to exclude such investors and investments. That is the real threat, not just to the northern hemisphere but, massively, to the developing world.
When I was at school, kids used to say to each other, "Do you know what the second sign of madness is? Hairs on the palms of your hands." The unsuspecting would look at the palms of their hands, breathe a sigh of relief and ask, "What is the first sign?" They would be told, "Looking for them." Before this Government also go "nuts in MAI" on the agreement, we ought to acknowledge that our first sign of madness would be our being party to negotiation of such an agreement and that the second, ultimate, sign would be our signing up to it. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to assure us that we

will not sign the MAI before the House has had a chance to discuss the full agreement as it is offered and that we will not sign without the full ratification and approval of the House.

The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on choosing such an important subject. The debate is both timely and welcome—timely because the negotiations on the MAI will shortly reach a critical phase as we approach the target date for completion, April 1998, and welcome because it enables me, on behalf of the Government, to clarify the current position, to offer some reassurances and, I hope, to correct some misapprehensions about the agreement.
We have had a good debate and we have heard well-balanced speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and for Putney (Mr. Colman). My hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) expressed what I know to be genuine anxieties, which I hope to be able to allay.
The OECD has long been active in international investment flows and has had in place general rules to encourage member countries to maintain an open and non-discriminatory stance on inward investment. Those rules, however, are neither binding nor effectively enforceable. After prolonged discussion in the early 1990s, OECD Ministers decided unanimously to launch the negotiations, calling for an agreement that would provide a broad multilateral framework for international investment. Such an agreement would impose high standards for the liberalisation of investment regimes and for investment protection, along with effective dispute settlement procedures. It was to be a free-standing international treaty open to all OECD members and the European Communities that would allow accession by non-OECD countries, which would be consulted as the negotiations progressed.
The underlying objective of the agreement is to contribute to jobs, prosperity and—most important—sustainable development by facilitating as free as possible a flow of foreign direct investments across national boundaries. Freedom of movement for foreign investments, subject to the appropriate governmental controls—like freedom of trade under the world trade rules—has a big part to play in the global market system. It channels capital to where it can be used most effectively and can contribute most to economic growth. The economy of the United Kingdom, both as a host country and as a source of outward investment, has always been a major participant.
The key principle of the MAI will be a basic obligation to allow foreign investors to make investments on terms that are at least as favourable as those offered to domestic and other foreign investors. That should reassure my hon. Friends, because what it means is non-discriminatory behaviour. The agreement will also provide certain protections for foreign investors—for example, protection from expropriation without compensation. That is part of a non-discriminatory framework. It does not offer foreign companies or multinationals any additional protection that is not available to indigenous companies. Let me stress,


in reply to my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Nottingham, South, that it does not mean—as some observers have suggested—that parties to the agreement will be prevented from regulating multinationals operating in their countries. It is merely that any regulation must not discriminate against foreign investors. The agreement will also provide for certain exceptions even to the non-discrimination rule. It is important to keep a sense of proportion.
The agreement does not prohibit the hiring of local labour; what it means is that Governments cannot insist on it, just as they may well not be able to insist on it for their own companies. It is the non-discrimination rule that is important.
The MAI will require its members to limit their freedom of action in some respects, but that self-denial will be quite restricted in scope. It will be the first binding multilateral investment agreement with provisions for dispute settlement, which will be an essential element in making the agreement effective. We do not expect that recourse to binding dispute settlement procedures will often be necessary, but the fact that the provisions are there will encourage signatories to take their obligations seriously.
The MAI will break new ground by providing both state-to-state and investor-to-state dispute settlements. That will enable disputes to be resolved without always raising the political considerations that inevitably arise in a state-to-state dispute settlement. We believe that that will significantly increase the effectiveness of the agreement.
In the time available to me, I should like to deal with some of the concerns expressed by hon. Members, one of which is that the MAI could shift the balance of power between smaller countries and large multinational companies considering where to locate their investments. The fear is that it would provoke a competitive spiral of deregulation designed to lure attractive projects. I understand that concern, and it would be foolish to say that there is nothing in it, but I doubt whether it will happen in practice. Evidence suggests that special exemptions from regulations are not effective in attracting investments. Predictability and transparency in regulation are far more important and we believe that this agreement will facilitate that.
I am well aware that a number of organisations and individuals, some of whom carry considerable weight and are well known to hon. Members, are concerned about the possible impact of the MAI on environmental and labour standards worldwide. I am also aware that some are concerned about the possibility of the MAI overriding obligations agreed in previously signed multilateral agreements. The new Government have made a clear commitment to safeguarding the international environment and to promoting sustainable development in both developing and industrialised countries. We would not sign an agreement that might damage those commitments. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North made an important point about possible legislation on environmental regulation. I reassure him that so long as environmental legislation is non-discriminatory it should be safe from the legal challenge that he described.
The Government—unlike their predecessors—have taken a strong line on these issues in the negotiations. In particular, we have called for an unambiguous reaffirmation of our commitment to the Rio declaration in the preamble. I am sure that that will be a source of some reassurance for my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, who rightly raised the matter. We want a clear reaffirmation in the MAI of the OECD "Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises". That important issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, who rightly referred to the 1976 date.
Those guidelines encourage multinationals to be good corporate citizens. We also want a strong and binding provision to prevent their lowering environmental or labour standards to attract investments. That issue was rightly raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham and for Islington, North, who referred to child labour. As he will know, the Government are firmly committed to ending abusive labour practices, including child and forced labour, worldwide. We are already pursuing that objective in the International Labour Organisation and in other international forums. We are also exploring how that work can be taken forward in the World Trade Organisation. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that our efforts are in marked contrast to the record of the Conservative party when it was in power.
In short, we are looking for clear language to ensure that there is no possibility of the MAI damaging progress towards better environmental protection and labour standards. We are also prepared to consider other proposals to tackle the problem. For example, we understand that some countries may see a role for a broad assessment of the impact of the MAI on the environment or on sustainable development across the world. Provided that we are sure that any such proposal will be effective and not just an additional bureaucratic burden, we will be willing to support it.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the Government do not want an MAI that could damage progress towards stronger national and international standards of environmental protection. Nor do we want an MAI that could threaten our commitment to sustainable development, core labour standards and the proper regulation of business. The Government would not support an MAI that was inimical to those objectives.

Mr. Corbyn: What discussions on the MAI have the Government had either with multinational corporations or through the OECD? What amendments are they tabling to it? When will they be brought before the House?

Mrs. Roche: Discussions are taking place. I shall today place in the House of Commons Library the report that was presented to Ministers on the progress of those discussions. I hope that that will provide some reassurance and some information.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that and for giving way a second time on this point. I welcome the fact that that document will be placed in the Library, but will she ensure that, at an appropriate date, there will be a debate in Government time on the MAI and the amendments proposed to it? We should have such a debate before we move to the next stage and to an international agreement.

Mrs. Roche: I am unable to provide that assurance, but I can tell my hon. Friend that this matter will have to go through all the procedures of the House. It has already been considered by the Scrutiny Committees, and because of the European Community dimension of the negotiations it will inevitably go through all the scrutiny procedures of the House.
There have also been complaints, particularly from non-governmental organisations interested in the environment and international development, that the negotiations have been conducted in secrecy. The Government strongly support wider consultation with NGOs to hear their concerns and to learn from their experience. It was agreed in June to arrange a further meeting of MAI negotiators and NGO representatives in Paris in October. I can confirm that my own negotiators will attend that important meeting.
In the United Kingdom, officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and other interested Departments have met British NGOs on more than one occasion and will be holding another meeting in September in advance of the Paris meeting. Officials in my Department are looking forward to that meeting. Naturally, I cannot promise that we will support every suggestion that the NGOs may make, but I can make a commitment that we will listen to their ideas very carefully.
I have spoken about the parliamentary scrutiny process. I am glad that the House has had the opportunity today to debate the agreement. We welcome that. In accordance with standard procedure, the agreement will be available to Members of both Houses prior to ratification by the United Kingdom.
The MAI has its roots in the OECD. A great deal of effort has also been put into outreach events, looking towards countries that are not part of the process. We are playing a prominent role in that.
United Kingdom negotiators will be present at an event in Paris in September for a large number of OECD non-members and at a first event in Africa in the autumn to be hosted by the Egyptian Government. We hope that, as a result of all that activity, by the time the negotiations are completed, at least a handful of non-OECD countries may—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We now move to the debate on British fishing policy.

Fishing Policy

11 am

Mr. Andrew George: I decided to raise the subject of British fishing policy after 2002 because I strongly believe that it is time that debate on the fishing industry is refocused on the longer term. We need to raise our sights and give the Government every encouragement to set the agenda for the reform of the common fisheries policy.
I have a fishing background. I come from a fishing community. Members of my family and some of my friends work in the industry. It is both an industry and a way of life, in which my ancestors have been involved for many centuries. I hope that the product of the debate will be to ensure that it not only survives over the next difficult five years, but can look forward to a genuinely sustainable future beyond the review of the CFP and onwards for many centuries to come.
Before I explain what I believe to be the weaknesses and failures of the CFP and how the problems can be addressed, I want to describe the present state of the industry in my constituency. There is no more obvious a place to start than the port of Newlyn. Despite facing many setbacks and experiencing a reduction in local effort, each year Newlyn lands fish to the value of £23 million. It is bigger than any other port in Cornwall, England or Wales. It is fourth in the United Kingdom by overall catch value and 11th by volume. That illustrates the high-value, low-volume landing of the Newlyn fleet. Some 400 fishermen work from Newlyn, with a further 1,100 directly related onshore jobs.
Fishing is a vital component of the local economy. There are 110 beam trawlers, otter trawlers, netters, potters and liners, so 80 per cent. of the landings are exported as whole fish or live shellfish. However, people often concentrate on the offshore fleet and fail to recognise the importance of inshore boats. As against the 110 offshore boats at Newlyn, there are almost 400 small inshore craft in the many coves and ports around the coast of Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly. As against the 400 fishermen of Newlyn, at least 700 people earn their living from inshore fishing. About 3,000 more are engaged in ancillary trades. Most of that trade is environmentally friendly and is unquestionably sustainable.
One month ago, David Chapple—a quiet, modest man, deeply respected by all who knew him—died at the young age of 68. He had to leave the local grammar school in Penzance at the age of 14, despite a promising academic future, because of the untimely death of his father—a mackerel handliner—and work the coast from Penberth. He was acknowledged as the leader of and spokesman for the mackerel handline fleet. He was also a member of the Cornish sea fisheries committee for more than 30 years. It is in honour of his memory that I ask the Government not to overlook the importance of retaining a viable inshore fishery.
Many of the inshore fishing methods are referred to as the lowest tier of fishing practice. In fact, gauged by the degree of sustainability of those methods, they are really the highest tier. In Cornwall, there are mackerel handliners, the Fal oyster fishery, crabbers, pilchard drifters and many others. The least we should do is protect the future of traditional fishing, which is of no threat to stocks.
I recognise that the new Government have been handed a poisoned chalice in most areas. However, it is no good looking back. It remains the intention of the Liberal Democrats to maintain a constructive dialogue with Ministers, within the development of our theme of constructive opposition.
One purpose of couching the debate in the way that I did is to override a worrying trend to hijack this important issue. During recent years, some have appeared happy to take advantage of the genuine fears of our fishing communities. I, like many others—no doubt including the Minister—was deeply saddened to see a few people use our fishermen and fishing communities as their front-line troops for their disturbing and xenophobic agenda—an agenda that had nothing to do with the genuine interests of our fishermen. Quite frankly, those people could not care less about fishing. The future of our industry is very important. I urge the Government to use the opportunity of the UK's forthcoming presidency of the European Union to set the agenda for the reform of the CFP.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about a certain tendency among some hon. Members. However, looking around the Benches today it is evident that that tendency is on the wane. It boils down to just the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).

Mr. George: It would be beneath me to comment on that.
I hope that we can establish a consensual debate to promote a sensible, realistic and, above all, sustainable policy for the fishing industry. The consensus must begin with the unanimous agreement that the CFP has been a failure and desperately needs early reform. That process will be greatly assisted if we all speak with one voice.
The CFP does little to prevent quota hoppers. It joins together two principles that clash fundamentally—first, the right of establishment enshrined in the single market, and secondly, relative stability that enables us to calculate each member's share of fish stocks. There is a desperate need to reconcile national quotas with the interests of the beneficial owners of the fishing fleet.
The structural policy of reducing the fishing fleet has had only limited success and can be said to have directly encouraged quota hopping. That is in part due to the lack of an adequate decommissioning scheme. Foreign boat owners have been able to meet their reduction targets by transferring their boats to other member states.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why both the decommissioning scheme and the structural support for the modernisation of the fleet have been such a disaster in Britain, and far less effective than in our competitor countries within the EU, is the very late process of decision making by the previous Government? The Conservative regime simply did not take the issues—or, indeed, the industry—seriously.

Mr. George: My hon. Friend rightly reminds us that we are left with historical difficulties. However, I want the debate to look to the future. Although it is appropriate to dwell a little on the reasons why we are in such a parlous position, we must do our utmost to look forward.
The common fisheries policy has not been able to prevent the severe depletion of a number of fish stocks. There are fears that, in the foreseeable future, we could face problems similar to those experienced by the Canadians in the once-prosperous grand banks. The CFP has been highly wasteful. It is estimated that, in some cases, as much as 40 per cent. of a catch is discarded, which can only encourage fishermen to become law breakers. Enforcement is not even and penalties can vary widely. Also, the scientific data used to determine total allowable catches and quotas do not have the confidence of the industry.
The decommissioning schemes, which aimed to rid the industry of any excess capacity, have proved unsatisfactory. Fleets have been reduced unevenly and not in the areas where a reduction in the fleet would have been beneficial. The system is bureaucratic and paperwork is excessive. Moreover, no other industry has its annual level of production decided one week ahead of the beginning of each year. It gets worse as there is no form of appeal either. Above all, fishermen feel that they have little ownership of the management systems.
In comparison with alternative proposals for a more decentralised system, the CFP is notoriously inflexible and painfully slow to respond to areas of need or of opportunity.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: My hon. Friend has just touched on the key issue, which is the ownership by fishermen of the conservation measures. Unless they feel that they are working towards effective fish conservation, so that the next generation, or even the fishermen themselves for a year or two, can continue in the industry, the race to catch fish first and to make a fast profit is bound to dominate. Even if it does not dominate, for example, in our area of Cornwall, others will come in and make use of it. It is not easy to create such local ownership, but that is the key to a solution.

Mr. George: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will draw attention to the need to change the way in which the fishing industry is managed. We need to bring fishermen more centrally into the management of the industry and they should take responsibility for the management of their stocks.
Having outlined the problems with the CFP, it is now vital that we consider some of the alternatives and solutions to what will otherwise become a catastrophe for the industry in general. We all agree that the CFP in its present form should be scrapped. We cannot afford any longer to fudge the issue. The fishermen do not like the CFP because it fails to secure their industry's future. Fish do not like it because it threatens their very survival. Euro-sceptics do not like it because it emanates from Europe, and Europhiles do not like it because it gives Europe a bad name.
The previous Government did not like the CFP because it posed problems that they were either unable or unwilling to tackle. If the present Government do not take decisive action soon in setting the agenda, we will have missed the boat in influencing CFP reform. We now have an opportunity to put forward our arguments to the European Commission's task force, which has been set up to examine CFP reform in preparation for 2002.
When we examine the way ahead for the fishing industry, one principle above all others should provide the basis for achieving the aim of creating a properly


sustainable industry: as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) has pointed out, that is the principle of empowering the fishermen themselves. Liberal Democrat spokesmen have long proposed to replace the CFP with a policy based on regionalisation, thus decentralising power away from politicians and empowering skippers with the responsibility of managing the fish stocks for themselves. Regionalisation would allow fish stocks to be managed around their own boundaries. It would also give fishermen, both in the UK and abroad, the opportunity to take control of their industry and to work together with skippers from an individual fishery and with fish scientists to consider ways of ensuring that fishing remains environmentally and economically viable. Regionalisation would allow all interested parties such as fish producers, scientists, port authorities, regional public authorities and enforcement authorities to come together and to co-ordinate a regional policy into which they would all have input and for which they would all have responsibility.
By regional, I mean that we need to consider the relative merits of natural regions such as the North, Celtic and Baltic seas, where boundaries coincide with the general range of a particular stock and coastal state management as favoured by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, operating up to the median line. The crucial point is that such semi-autonomous regions should be given the power and flexibility to determine the management systems best suited to their needs. That may include proposals in some regions for a restriction on days at sea, the use of a variety of technical conservation methods around net sizes and variations in their design, controls on fishing around spawning grounds or seasonal closures of spawning grounds or many other methods that have been debated.
The important point is that that should be decided by the real stakeholders in the industry—the fishermen—and not by politicians behind closed doors. The bottom line for me in all this is the reality that, with power, comes responsibility and if we give power to fishermen and the industry, and if they fail to protect their own stock effectively, it will be their responsibility. Conversely, if they succeed in reviving their stocks, as I am determined that they shall and as Norway has done, they should be allowed to share in the benefits of that in a sustainable way.
A crucial factor in all this is proper regulation, inspection and policing. I was very impressed by a recent discussion document from the NFFO, recommending the use of permanent and temporary closed areas. The Government would do well to consider that and to couple it with improved monitoring techniques such as satellite surveillance. It may be that, where some European nations are concerned about the ability of other European nations properly to police their stock, the Government might consider proposals for a strengthened policing role for the European Commission itself.
In addition, I urge the Government not to ignore the importance of the inshore dimension. It is vital that the Government seek to protect the industry by protecting the 12 and six-mile limits and by strengthening the role of sea fisheries committees. In my discussions with local fishermen, there is strong support for the protection of those limits.
Finally, I draw the House's attention to an aspect of EU fisheries policy that has received little debate here—its impact on the sustainable fishery of developing countries. In many developing countries, just as traditionally in Cornwall, it is widely recognised that fishing is one of the few resources available to the poor. In Senegal, for example, fishing employs 250,000 people, 17 per cent. of the Senegalese population and fish provides 60 per cent. of local protein intake. In March, contrary to the demands of Senegalese fishermen, the EU was granted access to fish in Senegal's coastal waters. My concern is about overfishing and the possible ruin of local economies. Surely it is time that we worked to secure some coherence between EU fishing policy and the development policies of the new Government Department of International Development.
We should be working to help to build and maintain sustainable fishing in developing countries, not plundering their stock. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that, in the CFP review, we take a responsible approach to that matter and press for a code of conduct to avoid irresponsible actions.
Many of those who come down to Cornwall from other parts of England and elsewhere and who might idly watch our boats set sail would be staggered by the legal and political complexities, the regulation and the pressure on the people engaged in what should be a straightforward occupation. Those visitors might begin to understand that there is a whole new language of TACs, MAGPs—multi-annual guidance programmes—quotas, PESCAs and so on, but, frankly, there should be no need to learn that new language because we all know what the fishermen know very well: politics is about not just interpreting policies and treaties, but priorities.
If our fishing industry is to have any future at all, it is time that it was given sufficient priority. That means being prepared to set the agenda, to use the UK presidency to give fishing priority at the next intergovernmental conference, and to ensure that the review for 2002 will provide for a sustainable industry. If we all fail in this Parliament to ensure that we give the fishing industry a future, there will be precious little fishing industry to debate in the next one.

Mrs. Joan Humble: I am very pleased to take part in this debate, which I hope will be constructive. I am sure that no one in the Chamber would disagree with the proposition that what we all want is a viable fishing industry for the future. A debate about how we will approach the review of the common fisheries policy is therefore important to us all.
The remarks made by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) about his constituency also apply to Fleetwood. Those who recall Fleetwood 20 years ago tell me that boats filled the entire harbour so that one could walk across it from boat to boat. Now, the boats are not there and the fleet has shrunk and shrunk. Nevertheless, the fishing industry is very important to the town. Almost 1,000 people are employed not just on the boats but in the auction market and processing plants. I am pleased that, in debates in Fleetwood and elsewhere in the country, all the disparate groups in the industry are working together—perhaps for the first time, since they do not all share the same agenda. If they do not work together, the fishing industry will indeed disappear.
I agree with many of the remarks by the hon. Member for St. Ives about the future. Clearly, we need proper regulation. Modern technology allows us to consider such things as satellite monitoring. We need to explore all possible avenues to ensure that fishing is properly regulated and monitored. The basis of any new fishing strategy and of the CFP has to be conservation. Without fish, the fishing fleets have no catch and the auction market has no fish to sell. We need to consider a conservation strategy that, on one hand, preserves our fish stocks, and on the other, provides opportunity for the future.
From speaking to fishermen in Fleetwood, I know that they are very anxious to get involved in debates on conservation because they realise that saving this year means having more fish to catch next year. They are considering new and imaginative strategies to ensure that fish stock is conserved and that they have a future.
Fishermen are also concerned about support for modernisation of the fleet, to which the hon. Member for St. Ives also referred. The previous Government withdrew grants for shelter decks, which many of my fishermen say are vital improvements to their boats that enable them to remain at sea for longer and catch more fish. We need to look at grants to help fishermen to improve their vessels to enable them to engage in the industry.
On the suggestion of a regional strategy, the local fishing forum in Fleetwood has worked with Wyre borough council on exactly such a strategy, which seems to have widespread support. Although there are differences of view on how it should be organised and implemented, I hope that the idea will be considered in more detail.
I compliment my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on what the Government have already achieved in their debates in Europe. For the first time, our Government have come back with some positive ideas on fishing, offering positive leadership and a way forward. With that positive leadership, I am sure that the Government will grasp the vital opportunity to ensure that our fishing industry will be preserved and viable in future. I hope that we can all work together and support the Government in that initiative.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) said that having a viable fishing fleet for the future was very important. As a former naval person, I entirely agree. Indeed, as a former naval person, I am reminded of the political, industrial, social, commercial, environmental and—not least—strategic importance of a strong and vibrant fishing fleet. It might assist right hon. and hon. Members to remember those six points by thinking of the word pisces. All those dimensions are represented in the fishing industry.
I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on two counts: first, on obtaining this important debate, and secondly, on highlighting the significance and importance of 2002. In what was otherwise an excellent speech, he fell into the trap into which so many politicians fall of thinking that the common fisheries policy can be reformed—although he

went on to say that it should be scrapped. He enumerated a number of problems associated with the CFP, of which those of us who have followed these debates for several years are all too well aware. The great danger in these debates is that we all engage in platitudes. Of course it is important to conserve fish stocks; of course it is important to have a vibrant fishing industry, and so on. But, one has to consider the fundamental structure of the CFP.
Some hon. Members present will remember that, when we debated these matters on 9 July—just a fortnight ago—the Parliamentary Secretary said that I had been entirely consistent on the subject.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Yes, consistently wrong.

Mr. Gill: I was just about to make that point. The hon. Gentleman indeed went on to say that I had been consistently wrong. I want to debate that very point with him because he must demonstrate in this debate why I am wrong. It is simply not satisfactory to sit on the Government Front Bench and say that an hon. Gentleman is wrong without producing a single shred of evidence of why he is wrong. I shall be inviting the Parliamentary Secretary later in my speech to address two or three specific questions and to give the House answers to them. If he can answer those specific questions satisfactorily, he will be going some way to demonstrating that I am wrong, but in the meantime, I shall remind him of what I have been consistent about.
I have been consistent in saying that the fundamental tenet of the CFP is equal access to the common resource. I have also been consistent throughout the debates in pointing out that all the derogations that benefit the British fishing industry expire on 31 December 2002. It of course follows that the system of relative stability that we currently enjoy will end on that date. Thereafter, regulation 101/76 applies, just as it did for 26 days in January 1983, when, as the Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt recall, Kent Kirk was arrested for fishing inside British territorial waters. There will be more of that in a moment.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that I have been consistently wrong. I am not consistently wrong unless and until he produces proof or evidence to back up the allegation. The questions that I want him to answer this morning are as follows. Does he categorically deny that the principle of equal access exists? He looks puzzled, as though he has not understood the question. I shall repeat it.

Mr. Morley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gill: Right. My second question is: if the hon. Gentleman denies that the principle of equal access exists, will he explain why his opinion is superior to the judgment of the European Court in the Kent Kirk case, which as he will appreciate, established a precedent in these matters? Thirdly—if he says that equal access will not apply after 2002—how will the non-discrimination conditions in article 2 of regulation 101/76 be satisfied?
The Minister must answer those three straightforward questions, and he will have to do so satisfactorily before he repeats his allegations that I am wrong. If he cannot answer them, the House will draw its own conclusions.
I have no wish to embarrass the Minister by demanding an apology for his allegations, but I want him to address the real issues and to divine the truth of the matter.
I well understand the dilemma in which the Minister and his predecessors have found themselves. I suspect that he dare not concede that, after 2002, regulation 101/76 will occupy the field. If he concedes that, after 2002, the regulation will occupy the field, the pretence that we can perpetuate the discriminatory relative stability that has existed since 1983 will be seen for what it is—a deception and device by which he and his predecessors have tried to postpone the inevitable day of reckoning, when, on 1 January 2003, the principle of non-discrimination is fully implemented.
What happens after 2002 will be crucial. We have to look beyond such immediate problems and short-term distractions as quota hoppers and relative stability based on 1983 percentage quota share-out. If the Minister is to retain any semblance of credibility, he will have to tell us what written guarantee or legal evidence there is to show that relative stability will be secure beyond 2002.
Unless the Minister can answer that question positively and convincingly, the House and everyone employed in the fishing industry will have to realise, before it is too late, the truth in the statement that
there is no legal text stating the perpetuity of the principle of relative stability.
Those are not my words but the words of Monsieur Laurec, the acting director-general of Directorate-General XIV, in a letter of 27 January 1997.
In his reply to this debate, I trust that the Minister will recognise the strength of the arguments that I have advanced and—rather than simply dismissing my arguments by asserting that I am wrong—answer the specific questions that I have asked, thereby enabling us to have a sensible and informed debate on a vital national interest.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on securing today's debate. Two weeks ago, he was unfortunate in not being able to speak in our debate on the fishing fleet. Today, however, he has more than made up for that lost opportunity by making an excellent speech on the industry. I shall not repeat my speech of two weeks ago, although—like the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)— I might continue one of the arguments made in that debate. I should like to refer the Minister to some current practical difficulties in the industry, which apply particularly in Scotland, but perhaps also elsewhere.
First, I should like to deal with the pelagic fleet, fishing for herring and mackerel. Since the start of the pelagic season, enforcement regulations have required pelagic boats to have on board only one licence, for either the east or the west coast. The boats must therefore make a 10-hour trip to west coast ports, for example, to obtain a west coast fishing licence. The regulations' inconvenience has been aggravated when boats have arrived, after a 10-hour trip, only to discover that a port's fisheries office is closed.
Such regulations do not apply to our immediate competitors. The Dutch pelagic fleet, for example, may hold various licences on its fishing boats. The Minister

may give the House reasons for maintaining such enforcement regulations, but it does no one any good to require fishermen to make unnecessary fishing trips, at considerable time and expense. Moreover, although the fishing boats are large, any fishing trip—as the Minister knows—has an element of danger.
Surely there is a way in which to enforce the regulations, which is better than requiring boats to steam for 10 hours one way round Scotland and then 10 hours back again to their home ports, simply so that fishermen can pursue their livelihood. It seems to be a curious way in which to enforce fishing regulations, and I hope that the Minister will undertake to examine the matter sympathetically.
The current situation is not terrible. Certainly, the Minister should recollect the guarantees that he and I requested from the previous Government, that the regulations enforced on our industry would be comparable with those enforced on our competitors across Europe. Pelagic boats in Scotland have not benefited from comparable treatment. I ask the Minister to address the issue and perhaps to propose an appropriate solution.
The second matter that I should like to deal with perhaps continues an argument—although not in the same manner—made by the hon. Member for Ludlow. How confident is the Minister that the principle of relative stability can be altered only by the unanimous agreement of member states? Some reassurance has been provided both in the letter from the President of the Commission to the Prime Minister and also in a recent ruling by the European Parliament's legal committee. Does the Minister not, however, anticipate a danger in the Commission's current proposal, which seemingly creates a new legal basis for the Council to take decisions by majority voting, on specifically technical and other measures that are linked to International Fisheries Commission agreements? The proposal seems also to be part of the process of determining quotas and total allowable catches.
Does not the Minister anticipate that, if the proposal is accepted, there is a danger of it being expanded to encompass essential elements of relative stability? I ask him to examine the matter, even if he cannot deal with it in his reply to the debate. I think that the hon. Member for Ludlow would be the first to acknowledge that his enthusiasm for pursuing the policy is not shared—as demonstrated by their voting behaviour and the points that they have raised—by his colleagues in the European Parliament. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament seems to have been influenced inordinately in making some of its decisions by the Spanish component. I and some European parliamentarians anticipate a danger that an apparently innocent Commission proposal could be stretched wide enough to place the concept of relative stability in the sphere of majority voting rather than unanimous consent.
The third matter that I should like to mention is a serious one for the Minister, and follows directly from our debate of two weeks ago. As many hon. Members wanted to speak in that debate and the Minister had very little time to reply to it, he undertook to write to me on the issues raised.
Towards the end of that debate, the Minister was asked specifically whether he would adopt a stance of not proceeding with capacity reductions until such time as he


was satisfied that assurances given on quota hoppers had had some effect in reducing the participation of those boats in the United Kingdom fleet. The Minister argued that he did not think that it was a sensible policy not to pursue the multi-annual guidance programme targets because of the ramifications for grants and other help to the industry.
Although I appreciate the Minister's argument, does he not also realise that—despite the comments of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble)—the fishing industry's assessment of the Government's achievements in Amsterdam can best be described as sceptical? The jury is still out on the matter—if it is not positively hostile—and the industry is fairly cynical about the Government's claims.
In an atmosphere of considerable debate about whether the Government's exchanges of letters, measures and assurances will be sufficient to deal with the quota-hopping problem, does the Minister not think that it is foolhardy to pursue capacity reductions before he is personally satisfied that those measures and new regulations will have the desired effect of pushing out some if not all of that quota-hopping capacity?

Mr. Morley: I shall deal with that point now, so that it does not get lost later. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the important principle that we have a legal obligation to meet the requirements of multi-annual guidance programme IV. Apart from the legal obligation, we wish to ensure that the economic link works, and we shall consult the industry on that point. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the real issues of sustainability and stock management, and we cannot ignore those in relation to the MAGP IV proposals.

Mr. Salmond: The industry does face real issues of stock management and capacity, but the previous Government assured the industry that they would not proceed with the capacity reductions until the quota-hopping difficulty was solved, precisely because of the fear of large capacity reductions in the domestic fleet, but none in the quota-hopping fleet.

Mr. Morley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Salmond: That is a reasonable fear in the industry. If the Minister does not acknowledge that, his contacts in government with the fishing organisations are not as close as they were when he was in opposition.

Mr. Morley: I must emphasise the point that the quota-hopping fleet is made up of UK-flagged vessels that come under UK regulations. They will be treated in the same way as any UK vessel. Indeed, as the MAGP IV reductions are on a segment basis and some of the big reductions are in the beam trawl sector, which contains many quota hoppers, they will take their share of the reductions. There will be no exemptions.

Mr. Salmond: The fear in the industry, as the Minister knows, is based on the fact that the quota hoppers' financial condition is somewhat better than that of many other elements of the domestic fleet. Therefore, however

the Minister approaches the reductions—whether by effort limitation, by a further reduction in total allowable catches, or through a voluntary decommissioning scheme—it is likely that more people in the domestic fleet will be forced to the wall than in the quota-hopping fleet. The industry's reasonable fear is that the capacity reductions could increase the quota hoppers' 25 per cent. share—which, I know, is not uniform across the various categories in the industry—by a rapid shrinkage in the domestic fleet and only a modest shrinkage in the quota-hopping fleet.
I understand the Minister's position: I hope that he understands the industry's concern. I understand that he wants to achieve the agreement in the exchange of letters in Amsterdam, but he must acknowledge that there is much scepticism about whether that understanding will be enough to make a substantial difference. Is the Minister sensitive to that concern? What assurances can he give about monitoring the progress of the attempt to solve the quota-hopping problem? Does he understand that merely to say that the MAGP targets are necessary for various reasons, without being sensitive to the industry's concern, may result in the quota-hopping percentage increasing radically as a result of dramatic shrinkage in the domestic fleet? None of us wants to see that.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I apologise to the House and to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), who was successful in obtaining this important debate, for not being here at the start. I was unfortunately detained in what one might call the bowels of the House, watching the debate through the periscope. It is interesting to come from a subterranean position to debate something even more subterranean—the common fisheries policy and the monstrous situation that it imposes on British fishing. I shall speak only briefly, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) vividly described the common fisheries policy, and it is certainly a monstrosity. It is not good enough to say, as the Labour party manifesto did, that the policy needs drastic reform, because it needs ending. A system that takes political decisions, doling out paper fish and limiting catches by quota, cannot work. It is the enemy of conservation, because it puts fishermen in direct competition with each other. There is no point in the British industry conserving fish and introducing more effective conservation measures, because the fish that are saved by the British fishing industry will be scooped up by European competitors. [Interruption.] My speeches usually attract a lot of attention. I was not heckled during the election, because nobody turned up at my election meetings, so it is nice to have it happen in a new format.
As long as competition is the ethos behind the policy and fishermen are in competition with each other, conservation is not possible. The CFP, although meant to conserve, is therefore the enemy of conservation. It is not working, it cannot be made to work and it should be ended.

Mr. Gill: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the only effective way to deal with many of fishing's problems is to end the CFP, but that is not the popular view. That does not mean to say that those of us who


represent the minority view are not right, but the popular view is that the CFP needs reform. We should ask the reformers how they will reform it. How will the reformers achieve unanimity, or a qualified majority vote, on any of the issues?

Mr. Mitchell: I would not describe the hon. Gentleman's position, or indeed mine, as a minority position. It is the position of the overwhelming majority of the fishing industry, certainly in England, if not in Scotland. Everywhere I have been to talk to fishermen, they have expressed a hatred for the CFP and a desire to leave it. We now have a benign Government with a more sensible approach to Europe, but if I were in charge of policy, we would come out of the CFP. That is legally possible, and the arguments that we could not come out do not stand up. We could do it, we should do it and, if I were in power, we would do it. However, in the current, practical situation, I recognise that no Government, Labour or Conservative, will do it.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is smiling, but the previous Government were more grovellingly sycophantic and servile towards Europe than the Labour Government will be. Every time the previous Government demanded something for the British fishing industry and a sine qua non was reached in the negotiations, the Tory Minister was required to climb down because the Government were in conflict with Europe on another front. In order to win on the other front, the fishing demands were abandoned or diluted.
This Government will not come out of the CFP, but we are in the same position as Sisyphus—rolling a stone up a hill, only to have it slip back again. If we are not to support withdrawal as a strategy, we must have a clear alternative strategy for fishing policy in the new century. It is no good the Government saying that they will reform the CFP, because they have to be committed to a strategy that will get the British fishing industry what it needs. If we are not going to adopt what might be called the extremist approach of withdrawal, we should remember that the ability to do so is available to strengthen us in the negotiations. We should know that we could withdraw and, if we do not get concessions that would make the British fishing industry viable, we should do so.
What strategy should that be? I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is interested in the coastal state management proposals of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, and I hope that he will attach himself to them. We should aim at those proposals, because they seem to be the most effective way of approaching the problem, offering a viable system of management for the changes necessary in 2002.
I agree with the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Ludlow and Save Britain's Fish about there being an intention to create a European fleet and end national effort. Alternatives to that are needed, because no British Government would accept such a proposal. The alternative has to be coastal state management, because it is the only practical proposition.
My hon. Friend the Minister attaches a lot of weight to relative stability, which is becoming the fig leaf of Governments. I doubt that it can be maintained. It was not maintained for the Spanish accession. We talked of relative stability, but British effort was cut, particularly in the south-west, to make way for Spanish vessels.
The same will happen when the big fishing fleets of eastern Europe come in. Room will have to be made for them. It will be very difficult to maintain relative stability.
It is no use just being attached to relative stability. We need alternative management proposals. The coastal state management strategy provides an alternative.

Mr. Salmond: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, particularly about coastal management. I know that he has read the Scottish National party's documents on that. If relative stability is not an important factor, guaranteeing protection for domestic fishermen, why are the Spanish fishing interests so concerned to overturn it?

Mr. Mitchell: I agree. That causes me to doubt what I am saying about relative stability, but I still think that I am right that it will not be a viable defence against changes. I have read with pleasure the SNP fishing documents. I am always amused by how such a passionately pro-European party can suddenly become so hostile to one of the three central common European policies—the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy and the common currency. Now that the SNP has stood on its head and abandoned its opposition to Europe to become Euro-sycophantic, it is nice to see touches of the old nationalism coming out in the party's approach to fishing.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry to have provoked the hon. Gentleman to come back on that.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is showing his age. It is more than a decade since the SNP re-oriented its approach to the broader European question. He cannot expect our sympathy and support for the European position to mean that we abide unquestioningly by every European policy. Every pro-European, of whom there are several on these Benches, reserves the right to criticise a policy if it is manifestly wrong, as the common fisheries policy most certainly is.

Mr. Mitchell: I agree. I should not have teased the hon. Gentleman. I have a long memory. I particularly remember the Liberal position when I was standing in a by-election in Grimsby. While the Liberal candidate was telling us that we had to work with Europe, in the middle of the by-election campaign the right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith) introduced a Bill to take control of Britain's 50-mile limit. People are curiously ambivalent on European issues such as the common fisheries policy—and so they should be. We have to stand up for our rights.
I was extolling the virtues of coastal state management, which we must aim at and move forward to. The central principle is destructive of the CFP—only the nation state has an interest in conserving its fish stocks and building up and protecting its fishing industry. For everybody else, our fish are a disposable resource to be looted and pillaged at will before sailing on somewhere else. For us, they represent the future of our fishing communities, our fishing families and our fishing industry. The nation state has the central interest. The only effective way to control


the situation is a system of management that allows us nationally to impose mesh size and one-net rules and to close grounds.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene briefly. It saves me making a speech in a minute. The nation state is not the only vehicle for such management. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), whom I congratulate on introducing the debate, made clear in his speech—for which, I am afraid, the hon. Gentleman was not present—it is possible on a regional basis, within the nation state, to ensure that fishermen have a direct stake in the conservation of the fish stocks on which they depend. That is a major issue of principle. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Liberal Democrats have argued for many years for more local control, so that people have a sense of possession over the policies that will affect their livelihood. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that the nation state is the only vehicle by which that can be achieved.

Mr. Mitchell: I was not saying that. I am grateful for that intervention, which allows me to make myself clear. I agree that there should be regional management within national coastal state management. I was positing the argument for coastal state management against the common fisheries policy, which is a policy of no effective management, because there are no uniform rules—there is no control at the port of landing, as there is in this country—and it is difficult to enforce the rules. Regional management is important within coastal state management.

Mr. Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a wonderful precedent has already been established in the Falkland Islands? The Government declared a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone. They determine who shall fish in their waters. Those who do so pay for the privilege. They are told what they can catch and know that they have to cease fishing when they have caught up to the limit of their permit. That is a good precedent for the way in which we might manage our fisheries.

Mr. Mitchell: It could be done like that. The Fishery Limits Act 1976 disallows that power. We exempt European vessels. If we had that control, it would be possible to manage access and the fishing that could go on in our waters.
I was not going to give a long speech. I am sorry that I have spoken for so long. I want to make a couple more points. Coastal state management is the way forward. The Government should argue for it in the renegotiation. The industry also needs investment, because it is in a financial crisis. People argue that British skippers should not sell quota to quota hoppers, but they are forced to do so by dire financial necessity. Why are they in that financial situation? Because they have not had the same access to European funding that competitors have had. Fulfilling their targets by reflagging vessels as British, the Spanish have achieved the MAGP targets and have access to European funding.
The cuts required under MAGP III are, I understand, less than the 20 per cent. that we thought at the end of 1995. Apparently, those cuts are now marginal. I hope

that we can get access to European funding, which the industry needs. It needs financial confidence. If we cannot get access to that funding, there has to be a national alternative. The money must come into the industry.
We are faced with a similar situation under MAGP IV, which will require more substantial cuts. I hope that those cuts will not be combined with a days at sea limitation of the kind that we all fought strenuously when it was proposed by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon when he was a Fisheries Minister. His attempt to impose that monstrosity brought the industry out in revolt to destroy the proposal. However, there must be some element not of set-aside, but of net-aside financing—not proposed by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon in his legislation—for the limitation of effort, and financing for decommissioning. National money is needed for that.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister accepts that he will have a fight either in Europe, to get a better deal and access to funding, or in Government councils, to provide a national alternative. From talking to my hon. Friend, I have more than just a hope that we shall commit ourselves to the vital principle of coastal state management, which is probably as near as we shall get to the national state management of our waters that we should have.

Ms Candy Atherton: I, too, thank the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) for his constructive speech, which helps all of us in our fight for Cornwall. I should like to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to a problem that particularly affects my fishermen in Falmouth and Penryn. They are concerned about the size of dredging equipment because the over-large size currently used damages the environment; I think that the Government will agree with that.
Unfortunately, there is a logjam, which means that measures to reduce the size of the equipment seem to have been caught up in the nets of Government legislation and various Departments. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would investigate the problem, as it is seriously worrying my fishermen. I hope that he will seek to solve the problem.

12 noon

Mr. David Curry: I should like to draw to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention a matter that has just been drawn to mine. Apparently, the Government have just decided to accede to the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and relinquish the Rockall fisheries zone. I should be grateful for the Parliamentary Secretary's clarification, because I received a fax this morning from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, which has not been consulted—I do not suppose anybody else has. Given the Government's widely proclaimed intention of running an open system, this seems slightly curious. It would be helpful to all of us if the Parliamentary Secretary could clarify the position, either in this debate or shortly afterwards.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) succeeds in his constituency somebody who took a powerful and informed interest in fisheries, and I am glad that he intends to do the same. His proposals for regionalization


have attractions, but there are many unanswered questions as well. I thought that he was hinting at some sort of multinational regional concept when he talked about North sea communities. As he knows, our fisheries are mixed fisheries with historical rights of access. Is he envisaging that the communities around the North sea will form one of those regional communities? That might be most obvious around the Irish sea. Is he envisaging that control will be exercised by groups belonging to different member states? There is also the channel, with historical rights on both the English and the French sides. The hon. Gentleman needs to define what he means by regionalisation.
The enforcement problems will be difficult if there is a series of immensely heterogeneous fisheries with immensely heterogeneous rules which are imposed by local communities. How does that deal with historical rights? How does it deal with people who are not based in that part of the world but who fish there and have long-established fisheries? An example of that is the Scottish pelagic fleet, which comes to the south-west. How would the rules be communicated and enforced? I see that as a recipe for great difficulty. I know that, every summer, there is the usual stand-off and fight between the Spanish and French boats in the tuna fishery in the Bay of Biscay. There is much that needs to be dealt with.
The hon. Member for St. Ives also knows that there is a very mixed fishery around the United Kingdom coast. I have great admiration for the way in which the Norwegians have run their fishery, and there may well be things that we can learn from them. However, we must recognise that it is a much more discrete fishery and is easier to manage than that around the United Kingdom coast. We should not assume that the transposition of Norwegian methods will necessarily be helpful in the UK context.
We can all probably agree that we want from the next phase of the CFP the two key objectives of relative stability in the quota shares and restricted access in the six and 12-mile limits. The measures that came out of Amsterdam seem to suggest that those are likely to be obtainable. The history of the Community has always been to try to roll forward and slightly modify things rather than to look at them fundamentally. Change based on the status quo is always more likely to come about than an ab initio alteration. Therefore, there is a reasonable chance of those aims being achieved.

Mr. Gill: I am sure that, with his great experience in these matters, my right hon. Friend recognises that there is a fundamental dilemma. How on earth can one preserve relative stability which is discriminatory in the context of regulation 101/76, which will apply from 1 January 2003 and which spells out clearly that we cannot have a discriminatory policy? Will my right hon. Friend pose the same question to the Parliamentary Secretary that I posed? Will he ask what evidence there is that relative stability will continue after 2002?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend has posed his question with such force that he hardly needs me to second it, especially as I have some questions of my own.
My thesis is that in the European Union the probability of a pragmatic solution being found with which everybody can live and about which nobody is particularly happy has such a long history that there is a sporting chance that that will occur again this time.
I want to address a broader issue in a deliberately speculative way because this is a wide-ranging debate. The present policy, based on total allowable catches and quotas, is massively dependent on control, regulation and intervention. It is applied, in theory, across the European Union. It means that the enormous interventionist and regulatory machine, which as the Parliamentary Secretary said, tells people what their annual catch ought to be, at least in theory, is applied to a traditionally freebooting industry—we might as well be honest about that. It applies at massive public cost and it does not work.
The policy is not delivering conservation and is not resting on any real consensus in the fishing industry. It is not a system of regulation and control that is willingly applied and observed by the industry. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to make it work. We all know that evasion, fraud and cheating are well nigh universal. The fishing industry would say that there is no real choice and no real way of making a livelihood, except by cheating. Other people might argue that the industry has not always broken its neck to apply regulatory methods and has not submitted itself to the necessary surveillance. That all adds up to an immensely complex system of control which is not delivering the goods.
What worries me is that the thrust of policy is to go even further down the same road. The Prime Minister came back from Amsterdam with various measures designed to address the quota-hopping issue. Whichever one of the three measures is chosen, it will be yet another element in the fabric of control. The Prime Minister has also proposed that we might have, for example, designated ports of landing. I remember talking eight years ago about the possibility of designated ports of landing as a way of getting round black fish, and so on.
The thrust of the policy is to multiply controls even further against an industry that is deeply unwilling to see them operate effectively. That means escalating costs and costs to the taxpayer. The costs deliver a poor rate of return if the investment in enforcement is set off against the achievement of sustainable fishing opportunities, and still less if it is set off against the development of the stocks.
We are all waiting for the next big stock crash. Will it be North sea cod? What will be the next big stock to crash? We all know that the spawning stock biomass is at a critical level. We talk about it every year. Every year, the Council of Ministers receives advice about the sustainable fishing quotas and there is a process of negotiation and barter which winches up all the quotas to reach a politically acceptable settlement. I know exactly how it works, because I have taken part in it. It will continue to operate, but it will not work. It will continue to be the method used to achieve some sort of deal.
The question is whether we can continue tightening the screws on a policy that is demonstrably not working efficiently enough. What are the costs of the policy? I intend to give some figures, but I readily admit that they are not all on enforcement. Significant elements may be on other matters; none the less, they show the total envelope of support for the fishing industry. The figures


are startling and they all come from the annual reports of the various Government Departments. I remember compiling such reports and wondering whether anybody ever read them. I now have an answer, because I have read them. In fact, I have some advice on how they could be made more readily understandable.
On page 215 of the report from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the figure for the conservation of sea fish stocks, which is mainly the British contribution to the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, is about £5.75 million. The figure for fisheries structures and markets is more than £12 million and for fisheries management and enforcement about £13.5 million. That latter figure embraces the six Royal Navy vessels in the protection squadron.
I remember having detailed discussions with the Royal Navy about the costs of that protection, because the Navy regards it as an important training mechanism as well. Whether those costs are distributed actuarially is a matter for debate between the two Departments. There is also aerial surveillance of fisheries and those aircraft can be used for other purposes. None the less, if we add all that together, we have already got about £31 million of MAFF spending. There may also be odds and ends from sea fisheries committees and European Union structural funds which have to be added to that total.
We now come to the Scottish Office: in 1997–98, the Scottish Office spent £27 million on fisheries and another £12 million on the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, which I believe uses a mixture of Royal Navy and private vessels.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The Scottish Office does not use Royal Navy fishery protection services.

Mr. Curry: It is interesting that the Scots should use private vessels, which probably have a longer life at sea and fewer requirements to put into port for weekend leave than Royal Navy vessels. Those two together add up to £39 million.
It is interesting that, according to the Scottish Office, the value of landings of fish in Scotland by UK vessels in 1995 was about £295 million. In that year—I am comparing like with like—the Scottish Office spend, including capital expenditure on a new fisheries research vessel, was about £35 million; in other words, the financial effort from the taxpayer was equivalent to about 12 per cent. of the value of the legal landings, which is an enormously high proportion.

Mr. Gill: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the title of this debate is "British fishing policy after 2002"? Will he address the issue of what happens on 31 December 2002 and what will be different after that date? All he has said so far is that there is a sporting chance that we will get our way on relative stability. I do not think that it is sufficient, either for Parliament or for my party within Parliament, to say that to the fishing community at this time. The fishing community must have something more positive. What is my right hon. Friend going to propose?

Mr. Curry: If my hon. Friend can wait a little, I am busy demonstrating that simply to roll the policy forward

and to multiply the degree of control within existing structures would not be feasible. It would not be feasible for purely national reasons: we can see how much the system is costing and we all know the pressures on public expenditure. I shall shortly consider ways in which the issue might evolve and ask questions about that.
I was about to point out that £5.2 million was spent in Northern Ireland. There was also £12 million for fisheries from the European Union for the single programme document from 1994 to 1999. The value of landings in Northern Ireland is put at £17 million for about 20,000 tonnes of fish, so the ratio of public expenditure to the value of the catch is even higher in Northern Ireland.
Add together the amounts spent by those three Departments and the total is about £75 million of public expenditure supporting the fisheries industry. I would guess the value of legal landings in 1997 to be about £500 million, although that is only a ballpark figure. Public expenditure of £75 million applied to landings worth £500 million shows that the ratio of support is about 15 per cent. I cannot think of another industry where there is that commitment to sustaining a policy that does not work. That is the heart of the problem. While we operate fisheries on the basis of a universal system of tax and quotas, it is difficult to see how to get off that treadmill.
I am not attacking the Government—we have all been on that treadmill and we are seeking a way off. I suspect that there may be two routes down which we will necessarily be driven, or which we will at least have to explore. At this point in my speech, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) will, no doubt, feel moved to revisit an indignation that is already familiar to us.
The first route is to move towards some form of simpler controls—in other words, to try to escape from a massively detailed set of regulations that cover everything from technical conservation to how long and where one can fish. As the hon. Member for St. Ives said, perhaps days at sea offer some opportunities. I have the feeling that days at sea may be with us in the end, because they offer an opportunity for enforcement that may take us away from some of the present systems of control.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby may dislike the other route even more. How long will it be before the Government ask the industry to contribute to some of the costs through charging for licences?

Mr. Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Curry: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I hasten to point out that that would have to be done on a Europewide basis. I do not recant what I did as Fisheries Minister: I made a serious attempt to get to grips with the problem of conservation and I accept that the fact that it was not done on a Europewide basis was at the heart of the problems we experienced. It has to be done on a Europewide basis if we are to maintain a common framework; a Europewide move is probable, because I do not see this or any future Government deciding to risk political capital by trying to withdraw from the CFP.

Mr. Mitchell: It is interesting to see that, in his reincarnation as fisheries spokesman, the right hon. Gentleman has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. The problem with the days at sea limitation was that it applied only in this country and did not apply to our competitors,


who were therefore free to take our fish. In addition, there was no financing of the lay-up period—why should fishermen lay up their boats without compensation when farmers get compensation for set-aside land?

Mr. Curry: I anticipated the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks and have already answered that point. He will recall that, in any case, many of the days at sea controls limited fishermen to no more than the actual period they already spent at sea.
Neither of the two routes I have described will work any better than the existing policy if the industry is deeply antagonistic to the controls. Technical conservation measures can operate only if the industry co-operates and perceives them as being in its own interest. The prerequisite has to be getting to grips with overcapacity through a fairly big-hit decommissioning scheme. That might well be followed by the introduction of more market mechanisms, for example, tradeable days at sea backed by technical conservation measures. Some of the measures, such as the closure of spawning grounds, seemed to work in the Norwegian fishery and were highlighted by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations in its most recent publication. That might give us the opportunity for rationalisation, once a step reduction had been taken, to be pursued internally in the industry.
I sketch that out as one of the possible scenarios. My thesis is simply that I do not think that we can continue on our present course, even if we were dealing with only a national fishery. That level of costs, without the system working, is not acceptable. The system is not demonstrably working, nor will it work at a European level. Therefore, we must either seek ways of getting off the treadmill through a simpler method of enforcement or consider a radically different structure for fisheries and a major attack on overcapacity in the industry. I should be interested in the Parliamentary Secretary's speculation about those outcomes. If my figures are wrong, I should be delighted to be corrected; but I suspect that, if they are wrong, it is because I have underestimated them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on obtaining the debate and on his sensible and mature speech on the fishing industry. His predecessor was well known for taking a view on the industry that often cut across party lines, because he argued for the needs of his local industry. The current hon. Member for St. Ives is continuing that tradition by advancing a well-reasoned case relating both to his own industry and to the future of the British industry after 2002.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) made an eloquent case for her own fishing industry and the regional needs of Fleetwood. I have met the hon. Lady and delegates from her local authority to talk about their port and their needs. That underlines the regional dimension of the fisheries industry in this country and the importance of regional ports such as Fleetwood.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is consistent—that much is certain—but he is wrong on certain aspects of his assumptions. What exercises him and other

hon. Members who share his views is their interpretation of what may or may not happen in relation to a future treaty in general and the common fisheries policy in particular. He is wrong about equal access, although he is right to say that that is enshrined within the CFP. He knows that I have argued that it is inconsistent and illogical in relation to the way in which the CFP operates.
My reason for arguing this—I have not changed my opinion at all—is that we now have the idea of relative stability, which has emerged over the years and is accepted by the Commission and by all member states. Under regulation 3760/92, the Commission has to produce a report by 31 December 2001—a report on changes to the common fisheries policy. But the principle of relative stability can be changed only by qualified majority voting by member states. If there is no agreement, it will continue in place automatically after 2002.
The President of the Commission, at the request of our Prime Minister, clearly stated in an exchange of letters:
The key elements of the common fisheries policy are widely valued, and as the Commission has already stated, it seems unlikely that the fundamental principle of relative stability will be called into question, or that there will be a desire to modify present restrictions on access to waters inside Member States' 12 mile limits.
We see relative stability as a key component of the common fisheries policy and its successor.
I still believe the hon. Member for Ludlow to be wrong, but I respect the fact that he has been consistent. Of all the so-called Euro-sceptics, he is the only one who has continued to show an interest in the fishing industry; he has made a valuable contribution to our debates. But his interpretation is wrong, and so is his approach.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said that the Scottish pelagic fleet has to obtain east coast and west coast licences, and has to call into port to get them. His point is well worth considering. The hon. Gentleman must know the reason for the process: the measure was introduced because of widespread misreporting. In other words, it was an enforcement measure. Any administrative problems to which it may give rise—the hon. Gentleman mentioned steaming into port only to find the office closed—should certainly be looked at, to see whether improvements can be found.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Parliamentary Secretary acknowledge that there must be a better way to proceed than sending fishing boats, in a climate of cost pressure, on trips merely to pick up pieces of paper? Will he at least undertake to consider the issue to see whether it can be resolved more satisfactorily?

Mr. Morley: I will certainly undertake to do so. I simply remind the hon. Gentleman that this was an enforcement measure to deal with what has been a serious problem.
The hon. Member for St. Ives is quite right to look ahead to 2002 and right to emphasise the importance of his home port, and how it will be affected. His port specialises in low volumes of high-value fish. There is a lesson to be drawn from that for the whole fishing industry: concentrate on quality and price, not on volume. That is a more sustainable way ahead.
I also acknowledge that the inshore industry is highly selective. I recently met the sea fisheries committees at their annual meeting; I believe that they have an important role to play in local fisheries management.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has also been consistent in his opposition to the common fisheries policy. I must concede that much of his criticism is spot on. There are serious failings in the policy—no one could disagree with that—but there is also a need for a pan-European fisheries management policy to look after fish stocks. The Falkland Islands offer a good example of the need for wider fisheries management. The zone to the north of the islands is in international waters and squid stocks are overfished there; that impinges on the whole Falklands fishery area, and it shows the necessity of international fisheries management.
Unilateral withdrawal from the common fisheries policy of the kind for which some people argue is not a realistic or tenable option, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby will concede. That is my sincere belief. We need to concentrate instead on reforming the CFP. I believe that we can achieve that and are achieving it. The CFP is being reformed. Regional groups have been set up to cater for the desire for a more regional approach. As for a more general strategy, I shall deal shortly with how the Government see the way ahead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) discussed the dredging of scallops and the need for conservation measures for our inshore fleet. She has talked to me before about the needs of her fishing industry, on whose behalf she has been a strong advocate. I can only assure her that we will make it a priority to resolve this outstanding issue.
The Government's objectives are, first, to strengthen the economic benefits that countries derive from their national quotas. The moves we made at Amsterdam were designed to that end. We did not come back claiming a huge victory in respect of quota hoppers, and I willingly concede that the industry is disappointed with the deal that we struck. That is probably because the industry's expectations were built up to unrealistic levels by the previous Government. What we achieved, however, was realistic. It will bring benefits to fishing communities, and it will act as a disincentive to the fishing vessels that rarely call into United Kingdom ports. Most of all, our deal kept economic benefits at the top of the list of priorities.
Secondly, we need effective controls on fishing efforts. Here there are various options, among which days at sea measures are only one. We do not want to go for the sort of scheme that the Conservative Government advocated and the fishing industry fiercely resisted. That is not to say that there is no place for some sort of effort control of that type, but we want to discuss that with the industry and ensure that it is workable. We have made it clear that fisheries enforcement policy will involve tough decisions in the end. The Government are prepared to take tough decisions in the cause of conserving stocks.
Effective enforcement may involve satellite monitoring, which is admittedly an expensive option. I agree that designating ports is a low-cost option, and I am keen on

it. During a high-level meeting chaired by the Minister responsible for agriculture and fisheries, the issue of industry contributions was brought up. Although that clearly needs discussion with the industry, it was not dismissed out of hand at the meeting. It is a controversial subject, and the industry rightly wants to know what it will get, in terms of restructuring, in return for its contribution.
We also need more effective conservation measures. In that context, I welcome the paper produced by the NFFO, dealing with technical conservation measures and containing some good ideas—

Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morley: I am sorry, no. Improving quota management will of course embrace time scale and bureaucracy issues. I agree about the need to involve fishermen in the ownership and management of their quotas. We shall be discussing that, too, with the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby is concerned about greater regional management. We are very interested in the comments of the NFFO on coastal state management. There are differing interpretations of its meaning, however. There is certainly a role for more regional managing of the fisheries in our country—a point also conceded by the Commission in the letter from Mr. Santer to the Prime Minister.
After 2002 we want to extend the positive benefits of the CFP—relative stability, and the retention of our six and 12-mile limits. That is a Government priority.
Where third-country agreements are in place, it is important that the countries in question, generally developing countries, derive some benefit from the agreements, perhaps in the shape of joint ventures and some landings. The Commission must bear that in mind, and we will press for it.
Finally, I wish to answer the point that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made about Rockall. The United Nations convention on the law of the sea made it clear that it was not possible to draw boundary lines from uninhabitable islands. We said that we would abide by that convention.
The relinquishment of the Rockall fishery zone will have no significant impact on UK fishermen. The level of catches in the Rockall zone is very low; it made up 0.1 per cent, of Scottish landings in 1996. In practice, UK fishermen will continue to have full access rights to 95 per cent, of the area in question and quotas will remain unchanged.
However, this country gains some tangible benefits, in terms of having internationally recognised boundaries, as a result of the ratification of the UN convention on the law of the sea. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon may remember that the Rockall boundaries were always disputed by Ireland—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. It is time to move on to the next debate.

Adoptive Parents

Ms Margaret Hodge: This debate is about the rights of one small group of people in our society. They are people who deserve our full support but who suffer gross injustice and against whom we currently discriminate. I am talking about women who cannot, for a variety of reasons, have their own children, and who therefore choose to adopt a child. At present, mothers who adopt a child are not entitled to statutory maternity leave or statutory maternity pay. Rights that are universal for women who are lucky enough to be able to bear their own children are denied to those who cannot have children and therefore adopt.
As the Minister knows, I and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), have been waging a long campaign on behalf of adoptive parents. In the dying days of the previous Government, I introduced a ten-minute Bill designed to end that unfair discrimination. Sadly but unsurprisingly, our coherent and overwhelming argument fell on deaf ears. There were few votes in support of that cause.
One of the first actions taken by the new Government— indeed, by the Minister who will reply to the debate—has been to start the process of righting the wrongs that these women suffer. When Britain adopts and incorporates the social chapter, we shall end part of the discrimination that currently confronts adoptive parents. I warmly welcome that move and congratulate the Minister on that action.
When the social chapter comes into force in two years" time, adoptive parents will be entitled to adoptive leave, but it will remain unpaid. That simply is not right, and I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the case that I and my hon. Friends put to him today. I hope that we convince him and his colleagues in government to go the whole way, and I hope that he will act swiftly to put an end to that dreadful and unjust discrimination.
Each year, 3,500 children are adopted into new families. Fewer than 400 are babies under a year old. Most are children who have come through the care system. They may have been shunted from children's homes to foster homes and back to children's homes. For them, the only alternative to a childhood in institutional care is adoption. For them, adoption is their only lifeline chance of experiencing a happy childhood in a loving family. For the parents who adopt, adoption represents their final opportunity of enjoying the fulfilling role of bringing up a child and creating a family.
We all know that adoption is the best option for those children. We know that it is good for the parents, for society and indeed for Government, for by promoting adoption we shall save the state the massive alternative expense of keeping children in institutional care. All of us are therefore beholden especially those who have the onerous task of governing on our behalf, to remove unnecessary barriers to adoption. However, in discriminating against mothers who adopt by denying them the right to maternity pay, we are not only perpetuating injustice but retaining a deeply unjust barrier to adoption.
Not all the 3,500 mothers of children adopted into a new family will continue to work, but some will want to and others will have to. We should work on the principle

that they have the right to choose. At present, discrimination means that they have lesser rights than natural mothers.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the points that she is making. Does she accept that we should also be talking about parental leave that includes fathers' rights? I make that point because I suspect that I am one of the few people in the House, or perhaps the country, who has had parental leave for all my children, including my son, whom we adopted.
I was very conscious that the initial period of parental leave helped to dispel some of my fears about whether it would be possible to love a child who was not my own, and made it possible to establish routines of bonding that were to serve us throughout the entirety of the lives that followed. I am profoundly grateful to my son for the lessons that he has taught me about loving. We should include fathers in those rights as well as mothers.

Ms Hodge: I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. I am taking things a step at a time. However, fathers' rights are recognised in the social chapter.
Since I and others have taken up this cause on behalf of adoptive parents, we have been inundated with heart-rending letters, telephone calls and visits from people who feel deeply bitter and angry at the treatment that they received from their employers when they adopted children.
I spoke to an occupational therapist from Birmingham who had adopted a two-and-a-half-year-old girl after a series of miscarriages. When she asked for leave, her manager said that it was impossible because she could not give a precise date when she would bring the child home. He also could not understand why she needed time off, because she was not going through a pregnancy and a birth.
Another mother, from Nottingham, had to go through the humiliating experience of telling a panel all about her gynaecological problems when she was pleading for maternity leave and maternity pay to look after the 10-week-old baby whom she had adopted. Some mothers have been forced to leave their job because they could not secure maternity leave. Others were sacked when they even dared to ask for it.
A civil servant, an employee of the Government, working in Norfolk, adopted a 16-month-old child. When she asked for leave, even she found that she was entitled to only 20 days' paid leave compared with a natural mother, who is entitled to paid leave for 18 weeks. When she collected signatures for a petition among her colleagues at work, they could not believe that she was not entitled to equal treatment. That is the case everywhere. No one can believe that, in the latter days of the 20th century, we in Britain practise such inhumane and unjust discrimination against mothers who are unfortunate enough to be unable to have their own children.
The argument goes—Ministers have written to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough repeating this view—that maternity benefits are paid simply to allow the mother to take time off work physically to recover from childbirth and to protect the health of mother and child. That is an outdated, Victorian view of pregnancy and parenting. Gone are the days when pregnancy and childbirth were regarded as an illness.
Of course there are exceptions, but most mothers— having had four children, I should think that I know what I am talking about—need maternity leave primarily, not physically to recover from birth, but to allow time to bond with the new baby, time to get to know one another, and time to adjust to the new relationships and the changed circumstances that a new arrival in the family brings.
That is as true for those who adopt as it is for natural mothers. Arguably, maternity leave is even more important for those who adopt. Often the children come from families where they have been subject to abuse or neglect and it is vital that mothers have time to settle the new child, who may well be traumatised by previous experiences. We want adoptions to work and we should help adoptive mothers by stamping out the discrimination that they face.
Ministers may say that they cannot afford to extend maternity benefits to that group. As it costs less than £2,000 per adoption to pay maternity benefit and £50,000 for every year that a child is kept in institutional care, it makes financial sense for the Government to fund the maternity benefit and save expenditure on keeping children in care. Ministers may also say that they do not want to saddle employers with another statutory benefit right. That is simply unfair to adoptive parents and it exaggerates the impact of our proposals, for we are talking about some 1,500 women who adopt each year and continue to work, and who will therefore receive the entitlement, alongside the 260,000 natural mothers who currently exercise their rights each year—that is just over half of 1 per cent, of the current total.
A strong business case can also be made for ending the discrimination. That is recognised by companies such as the Body Shop and Boots and a number of local authorities, which have an adoption policy for their employees. First, if adoptive mothers are entitled to maternity leave and pay, they are more likely to stay in their jobs, thus saving employers recruitment and training costs and helping them to keep skilled and experienced staff. Secondly, small employers can at present insure for statutory maternity leave and pay. Employers cannot insure for those circumstances for which there is no statutory basis. For small employers, footing the bill by exercising discretion in favour of adoptive mothers then becomes a financial burden that they have difficulty in affording.
Our case is simple and just: end the inhumanity of this discrimination against mothers who adopt a child and grasp the opportunity of a new Government to put right an obvious wrong. By ending discrimination against adoptive parents, we in Parliament can remove just one obstacle that lies between a child who desperately needs a mother and a woman who wants to provide a loving home for that child. I urge Ministers to act now.

Helen Jackson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on the work and effort that she has put into this issue and on gaining this debate this morning. I am grateful to her for allowing me to make a few comments.
I first took up this issue in March 1995 on a cross-party basis with the support of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who raised it in 1993 in the

House and who, free from her ministerial responsibility, remains supportive and may now be able to join the campaign again. The problem was brought to me by a constituent who had asked for unpaid leave from her employer during the settling-in period when she and her partner adopted a small baby. She had a responsible job as company secretary of a small manufacturing firm. She was refused time off, but, as she was determined to make the adoption work, she took time off and was summarily sacked. She had no right of redress as the law stands.
Shortly afterwards, the then Secretary of State for Health made a statement on adoption to the House, stressing the importance of a bonding period to ensure that adoption worked and developed. She was, however, unable to justify or even comment on the lack of an adoptive parent's right to leave, because that was the remit of the Employment Minister, or on paternity allowance, because that was the remit of the Social Security Minister. The issue therefore crosses departmental responsibilities.
The basic fairness of giving adoptive parents equivalent time and space to adjust to the arrival of a new child or baby seems plain to all. Between 6,000 and 7,000 adoptions take place each year and a small proportion of those are of children under the age of five.
It is as well to distinguish between the elements that we are discussing. First, adoptive parents should have the right of leave from work at the time of adoption. I am aware that not all employers take the attitude of the firm in my constituency, but no employer should have the right to take that attitude. An adoptive parent's right to leave involves minimal costs to an employer, none to the Exchequer, and can hardly be said to threaten Britain's competitiveness.
The European directive on parental leave now encompasses that right and it is to the new Government's credit that their determination to sign up to the social chapter to incorporate European employment directives should now ensure that no one can be sacked on those grounds in the future. We shall now join France, Germany, Spain and Sweden, among others, in having a statutory right to parental leave. However, we should go further and offer paid leave on the grounds of both principle and practicality.
We now know much more than we used to about the importance of strong parental love and family ties, and their fundamental link to a growing youngster's future emotional, educational and social development. Paid leave for parents at the time of adoption strengthens those family ties. A strong family unit is of the same importance to families that adopt as it is for all other families. To deny the rights enjoyed by natural parents to adoptive parents is simply discrimination.
Naturally, some costs are involved in introducing paid adoption leave, but the number of people involved is small. My hon. Friend spelt out the figures and, as I discovered back in 1995, they amount to less than half of 1 per cent, of the total budget for maternity pay for those who adopt a child under school age. In the overall run of things, that is minuscule, given that encouraging adoption, as the measure will, saves the state the cost of keeping children in care—it costs more than £48,000 to maintain a child in residential care—and given that the measure will save money by reducing unnecessary staff turnover and the £12 billion cost of absenteeism.
As my hon. Friend said, some employers say that the lack of statutory entitlement to adoption leave is a hindrance to their business as they cannot insure for adoption leave as they can for maternity leave. The previous Administration used to label such costs as burdens—burdens on business or on the Government— but we now live under a new regime with a new approach and, I hope, a new language. Such expenditure is justified, not only because it is fair but because it represents sound value for money.
It is not possible to put a price on a safe and secure society, but where we can identify small contributions that will make a real difference to people's lives, the Government should go for them enthusiastically.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on securing this debate. I am well aware of her sustained interest in leave rights for adoptive parents. I have recently been in correspondence with her and with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on this subject. I recognise the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) in his intervention earlier in the debate.
May I say from the outset that we recognise the invaluable role that adoptive parents play in society. Parents who adopt children do so for the most compelling reasons. There is no higher calling in society than to provide a home and affection to children who would otherwise be deprived of family care. The benefits to the children are immeasurable. Some children may experience emotional or other difficulties as a result of not being brought up with their natural parents. That point was well made by my hon. Friend in the debate on this issue earlier this year.
Before commenting further, may I say that I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friends to discuss their views, and I hope that they will take up my offer.
There are also benefits to the adoptive parents, particularly those who do not already have children of their own. Such a role can be immensely fulfilling. Society benefits, too. Children brought up in a loving family environment will be able to make a positive contribution to society.
I believe that I am the youngest grandfather in the House. My grandparenting responsibilities have somewhat gone by the wayside since I became a Minister of State in the Department of Trade and Industry. Perhaps my grandchildren will be looking for an adoptive granddad, unless I waken my ideas up over the summer recess.
I recognise the well-intentioned motives of my hon. Friend in focusing on the position of adoptive parents. She argued convincingly that the position of adoptive parents requires special attention. I do not have an easy task in responding to the many persuasive points made by my hon. Friends during the debate, but I shall do my best to deal with the strong arguments that were put forward.
One of the Government's key aims is to promote measures that will help people to balance the demands of work and family life. That includes the implementation of the parental leave directive, which will provide three months' unpaid leave to natural and adoptive parents. That is a welcome development, and one that explicitly recognises the needs of adoptive parents.
We aim to encourage employers to provide flexible working arrangements in the workplace. That includes part-time or flexible hours, job sharing and term-time working, working from home and career breaks. We will ensure proper protection for homeworkers and an enhancement of their role.
We are committed to producing a national child care strategy, which will help parents, especially women, to balance family and working life. We also have in hand a new initiative to help to integrate education and child care. That will provide early-education places for four-year-olds whose parents want one for their child.
All those measures are designed to underpin family life and to encourage a more flexible approach to working life. This family of initiatives reflects the Government's passionate commitment to balancing the needs of family and work. It also reflects our more positive approach to the social chapter, enabling us to benefit from European social policy initiatives. Opting in ensures that we will play an active part in developing such initiatives, rather than being left on the side-lines, carping and being ignored.
The Labour Government will do all that they can to encourage improvements in the workplace generally. We will aim to ensure that fair minimum standards are available to all employees, including adoptive parents. Part of our longer-term task is to create a fresh approach—a cultural change—based on partnership, rather than conflict.
Maternity health and safety issues are fundamental to the current maternity rights regime. The maternity leave provisions apply to all pregnant employees and are based on the pregnant workers directive. In addition, the directive requires employers to carry out a risk assessment, which is intended to assess the health and safety risks to the pregnant employee. Employers are required to offer alternative work if a risk exists. If necessary, they are required to suspend the employee for her own good and that of her unborn child.
The absence and return to work of an employee in those circumstances should not be compared with the circumstances of an adoptive parent. If there is a case for adoptive leave, it must be based on a different premise, as it does not contain the same element of health and safety for the new parent or the child.
The Government provide various forms of support to pregnant employees. Statutory maternity pay—SMP—is based on average earnings for the first six weeks of maternity leave, and after that on a flat rate of £55.70 per week for the remaining 12 weeks.
Maternity allowance is provided for employees who do not qualify for SMP, but who have paid sufficient national insurance contributions. It is also paid to the self-employed. The current rate is £55.70 for employees, and £48.35 for the self-employed.
The social fund maternity payments scheme is available for adoptive parents. It is available to families on low incomes or in receipt of disability working allowance. There were 216,000 such payments in 1995–96. The sums set aside for this fund are considerable: £22 million for 1996–97 and for 1997–98; and £23 million for 1998–99.
There is scope for local authorities to make discretionary payments in the form of an allowance related to the needs of the adopted child.
The idea of providing similar benefits to adoptive parents, especially those who adopt babies, is at first glance attractive. I understand the value of allowing time off work for adoptive parents to establish bonds of affection with young adopted children. Personally, I have much sympathy for the views expressed by my hon. Friends.
However, it is worth making a general point. The benefits paid to natural mothers are not intended to facilitate bonding, or even to provide financial support for the additional costs of looking after children. Benefits are intended to encourage pregnant employees to take up their maternity rights, so that they are not under pressure to stay on or to return to work too soon. Such pressures could lead to health and safety risks.
We can make much progress on the issue, but it will require a different approach which could usefully include a number of the points mentioned earlier. We need to recognise that existing maternity provisions are based on health and safety considerations, and that those considerations do not apply to adoptive mothers. Maternity benefits are intended to encourage pregnant employees to avail themselves of their leave entitlements. Again, that is linked to health and safety considerations. It is right that state benefits should be provided to pregnant employees who will inevitably have their earnings interrupted by giving birth.
We should take a fresh look at the issue and consider the position of adoptive parents on their own merits, not by comparison with birth mothers. That should enable us to consider the matter more favourably, and more in line with the views expressed by my hon. Friends who have been so eloquent in their passionate discourse. We should see adoptive parents as having their own distinctive requirements.
More generally, the Government are committed to family-friendly policies, designed to meet the needs of those with family and work responsibilities. That is why we will implement the parental leave directive. Our policies will develop in the years ahead, and there will be opportunities to consider how we can best achieve greater flexibility in the workplace.

Helen Jackson: My hon. Friend the Minister has emphasised the health and safety element in maternity

leave. Does he accept that that is only one, fairly minor element in the existing arrangements? Our arguments about equal treatment cover all the rest, which is a much larger part of the reasoning behind maternity allowances and maternity pay.

Mr. McCartney: I have tried to set out a range of concepts applying to the workplace and the role and rights of adoptive parents. I have invited my hon. Friends to join us for further discussion. As a Government, we are in power for five years and, we hope, for a generation if we get such policies correct. We do not want to take a bull-in-a-china-shop approach—a big bang solution to everything. There are issues of principle, some of which have practical implications for other issues. Much of our strategy dovetails with other initiatives that the Government are preparing and are likely to adopt during this Parliament.
I offer my hon. Friends a genuine partnership to see where we can fit in their proposals and to examine the merits of the case, in line with the Government's general aim to provide employees in the workplace with basic minimum standards, and to ensure that those standards are non-discriminatory.
I have tried to respond positively to my hon. Friends. It is important that we co-ordinate policy across Departments, and my hon. Friends' arguments have implications for several Departments. The best way forward for this Government is through co-operation and co-ordination. We must reach agreement on our objectives and set out our plans for implementing our policies.
I am sure that my hon. Friends will have listened carefully to what I said. I hope that we can pursue the matter constructively through discussion and in partnership with other Departments, with employers, with employee representatives through trade unions and in other forums. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friends, in a spirit of partnership, to advance our dialogue on this issue. It is interesting to note, not for the first time, that no official Opposition spokesperson is present even to listen to the debate. We know that the Conservatives gave up in government, but it now appears that they have given up in opposition.

Sanitaryware (Flushing Standards)

1 pm

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for this opportunity to introduce this important debate, which is not just about water regulation. It concerns water conservation; jobs; our balance of trade; and, perhaps most importantly, public health. As well as being interested in those technical matters, I have a constituency interest because Armitage Shanks, the biggest manufacturer of bathroomware in this country, is based in the town of Armitage near Lichfield in my constituency.
I shall begin by outlining the current position. Current water regulations prevent WCs from being installed in the United Kingdom unless they are of the siphonic type perfected by Sir Thomas Crapper in the last century. That is a fail-safe system. When the chain is pulled or the lever turned, a vacuum is created. Water is sucked up a pipe and then flushes into the lavatory. When the water flow finishes, the vacuum is broken. The water cannot then continue to flow or leak; nor can foul water be drawn back into the drinking water supply. As I have said, it is a fail-safe system.
The inferior valve system, which is currently banned, does leak. Like a plug in a sink, it inevitably corrodes, and water constantly trickles or even gushes from the cistern into the lavatory. Tens of millions of gallons of water are wasted every year in France alone through the use of this inferior method,
So why have I called for this debate today? At the beginning of this month, draft water regulations were published for public consultation. They are intended to replace the existing water byelaws. One aspect in particular gives rise to grave concern.
The draft regulations include a proposal to allow valve-flush cisterns to be fitted to WCs as an alternative to the currently exclusive mandatory requirement for the siphon flush. If this proposal to relax the current high standards of the byelaws is permitted, it will prove impossible to prevent the import of cheap and inefficient Sanitaryware that will waste water through leakage. The effect on the environment will be significant. I put it to the Minister: at a time when the Government are rightly pressing the water companies to control leaks, will she allow a change in legislation that will create even greater water loss?
Moreover, the valve system also has the potential to compromise the integrity of the drinking water supply if the back-flow prevention capability is less than the current high standards demanded by the existing byelaws. Will the Minister give an assurance that she has considered the proposal properly, and will she explain how the negative results can be justified?
If inadequate regulations are made, the effect on the United Kingdom sanitaryware industry will be dramatic and immediate. The United Kingdom will see a flood of cheap, inefficient imports; one of the consequences of the resulting unfair competition will be lost sales for UK manufacturers, and, in turn, lost jobs. There will be an immediate adverse effect on the United Kingdom balance of trade, and a weakened British industry will be less competitive in its existing export markets, thus exacerbating the adverse trend in the balance of trade.
The impact will be felt hardest in the regions—those very parts of the country that the Deputy Prime Minister is committed to supporting by the Labour party manifesto.
Will the Minister confirm that she has consulted the Deputy Prime Minister on the impact of the proposals on his constituency in Hull, where one of the more important United Kingdom sanitaryware producers, Ideal-Standard Ltd., is located?
Let me be clear about this: my interest in this matter is to save jobs that are threatened in a British industry, which, for more than a hundred years, has been a positive contributor to the United Kingdom balance of trade; and, perhaps even more importantly, to conserve water at a time when ever-increasing demands are being made on a diminishing and essential national resource.
This is no parochial issue affecting a relatively small, albeit successful, industry. The regulations will directly affect every man, woman and child in this country. Water byelaws represent "best practice" for the supply and installation of plumbing fittings, and any departure from them may be retrograde. They are the means by which water companies meet their obligation to prevent water wastage, undue consumption, misuse of water and contamination of the drinking water supply.
Although established by the water companies, the regulations are endorsed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that the regulations, if implemented, will maintain the fundamental objectives of the existing byelaws?
Although today's siphon is essentially the same in design as Crapper's "water waste preventer"—as it was called 100 years ago—it is a much more efficient device. In Crapper's day, a 40-litre flush was not uncommon— although it did not measure litres in those days. Over the years, flush volume has been reduced as the Sanitaryware industry has responded to revisions in byelaws, which are updated every 10 years. Since the 1960s, flush volume has been reduced progressively from 13 to six litres. United Kingdom manufacturers are already introducing six-litre siphonic flush WCs ahead of proposed further reductions in the new regulations.
Given the longevity of Sanitaryware, it will not surprise hon. Members to learn that there are at least 50 million elderly WCs installed in the United Kingdom that flush more than 13 litres of water—and I suspect that many of them are working here in the Palace of Westminster. The potential for water saving by replacing those rather thirsty appliances is clearly enormous. Has the Minister calculated the water savings to be made by replacing the existing population of nine, 11 and 13-litre flush WCs with six or seven-litre flush WCs? Has she compared that with the savings to be made merely by making their installation a requirement in new-build situations?
The byelaw requirement for siphonic flush ensures that not a single drop of water is wasted. It is supported by the Environment Committee, which took evidence last year from the deputy commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection on the leakage from valve-flush WCs in New York. A survey of apartments found that 7 per cent, of WCs were leaking at a rate of 197 gallons—good old gallons—per day. That waste should be viewed in the context of the average daily per capita consumption in New York of 148 gallons per day. The wastage is significant.
New York's experience is not unique. At a recent conference on water conservation and public health, the Building Research Establishment reported that 16 per cent, of all WCs in France leak.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions recently commissioned from the Building Services Research and Information Association a research project into the comparative performance of siphons and valves. Of eight different types of WC flush valve tested, four leaked, two had to be adjusted, and two had to be replaced to overcome leakage. It was concluded that any type of valve would leak eventually, and so should be installed only in conjunction with a water meter. However, there are flaws in that argument, as I shall explain.
In 1994, the British Bathroom Council commissioned the independent consulting company W. S. Atkins Ltd. to carry out field research in Germany and France on the reliability of valve-flush WCs. In France, leakage was a problem through cheap replacement valves being fitted in the DIY sector. W. S. Atkins's report was provided to officials at the Department of the Environment in 1994. Can the Minister explain why she supports the introduction of WC flush valves in the face of compelling evidence that they waste water?
I understand that the draft regulations are the recommendations of the Water Regulations Advisory Committee to the Secretary of State. Against the advice of the sole member drawn from manufacturing industry, which knows about these things, the committee has stated that WC valve flushing will save water, as it is more effective at lower volume. That is patently untrue.
The well-established reality is that all valves eventually leak and waste water. Leaks often go undetected or unremedied, even where a water meter is fitted. Furthermore, valves often leak at rates not picked up by water meters, and the total waste would be significant. In any case, the UK is unique in Europe in having only about 8 per cent, of domestic premises fitted with water meters, and it will be years before their use is widespread.
There is a further issue. A WC flushed with a valve is fundamentally less hygienic than a siphon. A valve flush does not scour the pan as effectively as the slightly slower flow from a siphon. It follows that poor scouring will result in fouling of the WC pan and be a health hazard— and lead to waste of water, because of the frequent need to double flush. There is an additional hygiene risk where a WC is blocked and there is a leaking valve. It is theoretically possible for foul water to be carried up into the cistern through a valve by eddy currents flowing against the downward flow. The result could be catastrophic—contamination of the drinking water supply.
The construction of the siphon precludes that risk, as it incorporates a dry, protective air gap approaching 10 in. Can the Minister confirm that she has assessed the additional hygiene risk associated with allowing WC flush valves in regulations? Might it be more than a coincidence that, in continental Europe, with its WC valves, we are often advised not to drink the local tap water?
The Water Regulations Advisory Committee proposes that the new water regulations should come into effect in October 1998. It seems to me that there are a number of practical problems in that timetable. The legislative process, including the current public consultation, must be followed by redrafting in the light of any comment before the proposal can be submitted to the European Commission for approval. The speed of that process risks errors and omissions.
If the Minister were to proceed into this headlong dash, manufacturers, merchants, retailers and the plumbing trade generally will have only a matter of weeks in which to implement changes in manufacture, stock holding and installation procedures. What consideration has the Minister given to the impact on the plumbing trade of the proposed timetable?
Given that WCs can be designed to flush effectively with a siphon at six litres—I am assured by UK manufacturers that they can—this question must be asked. Why is the WRAC prepared to admit inferior, wasteful, dangerous flushing designs for no gain? Could it be that commercial pressure from importers and Brussels has some bearing on the issue? Does the Minister support this?
The CEN, the European Committee for Standardisation, is years away from agreeing performance which might be used as the basis for legislation or the process of enforcement. Surely the United Kingdom can justify the retention of its excellent and efficient, if unique, flushing method—although I have seen the British system in use in the United States—until the CEN can introduce a European standard that defines a level of flushing performance that is no less efficient than our own. The uniqueness of the United Kingdom method is not, per se, an argument for its harmonisation out of existence.
The treaty of Rome allows the retention of technical legislation that can be justified on the grounds that it applies to all and is for the public good. A change to these water regulations will cause millions of gallons of water wastage. It will damage our balance of payments and threaten jobs. It will be a major health hazard. Cannot the Minister confirm that the existing byelaws are indeed pro bona publica?
Perhaps the most important question of all that needs to be answered today is this: can the Minister give the nation an unequivocal assurance that whatever decision she makes will not result in greater use and wastage of water than is now the case?
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister and the House will be aware of the adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The Government should think twice, thrice, four times again before embarking on this dangerous course of action.

The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) on securing the debate. His knowledge of, interest in and unashamed enthusiasm for the British lavatory and its siphonic flushing mechanism appears to know no bounds. He has waxed lyrical about the history and development of flushing mechanisms in a way that should perhaps make us all look at this familiar but vital contraption in a new way.
Indeed, I have the hon. Gentleman to thank for the opportunity to see my ministerial desk full to overflowing yesterday with a display of toilet flushing mechanisms of every conceivable kind in order that I might more effectively understand the points at issue in today's debate. I would have treated the House to that display had I not been mindful of the very strict rules preventing the use of visual aids in the House.
However, I feel that the hon. Gentleman has let his fertile imagination and well-known enthusiasm run riot. I am afraid that I simply do not recognise the nightmare scenario that he has painted for the House today of destroyed British jobs, poisoned water supplies and the triumph of inferior continental conveniences. Indeed, the House might be excused for thinking that the hon. Gentleman is completely potty for harbouring such lurid fears. I shall take this opportunity to reassure him.
As part of our commitment to water conservation, the Government will introduce new water regulations to replace the water byelaws, which have served to prevent the waste, misuse, undue consumption and contamination of water. They cover all plumbing installations in premises and a range of water appliances, including bathroom and kitchen fixtures and fittings, washing machines and dishwashers. The new regulations will cover similar areas, but will actively promote water conservation.
I should make it clear that no decisions on the contents of the regulations have been taken. The Water Regulations Advisory Committee will make recommendations to the Government late in the autumn. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that I have already made up my mind on the introduction of valve-flush systems. He is premature in that judgment. When the committee's report is submitted, my ministerial colleagues and I will consider its advice. In doing so, we will take full account of the key issues of water conservation and also of any impact that changes may have on business, employment and public health. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not make any changes that place unacceptable risks on either.
The hon. Gentleman particularly asked whether I had consulted my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on this issue. I am tempted to tell him that we talk of nothing else, but the real answer is that, when there are some proposals to consult my right hon. Friend on, I will do so.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the symphonic flush system—

Mr. Fabricant: Siphonic.

Angela Eagle: Well, mine sounds symphonic.
I agree that the siphonic system has served us well for more than a century. Over the years, as the industry has developed more efficient designs, it has certainly been possible to make significant reductions in the amount of water used, with no loss of effectiveness. The security that the system gives to public health as a result has also been valuable, and I do not underestimate it.
However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that there is great potential for water conservation through reducing the amount of water used for flushing WCs, which currently accounts for a third of all household water usage. Clearly, if there is a mechanism that can reduce the volume of flushes, it would be right to consider its introduction in this country.
In its report last November, the Environment Select Committee said that reducing the maximum WC flush volume to six litres should be a priority. Most developed countries now have a six-litre maximum flush, without any discernible effects on public health. The hon. Gentleman reports that UK manufacturers are already

introducing six-litre systems. Good. I shall certainly look to the industry to investigate further whether we can reduce that even more.
Depending on the advisory committee's recommendation, we might consider allowing the introduction of dual-flush systems with a maximum flush volume of six litres, providing the option of a lower volume of four litres. I leave the question of when a lower volume might be appropriate to the hon. Gentleman's imagination.
Valve systems offer such a choice, and therefore merit consideration. They can deliver a lower volume of flush when that is required, and allowing their installation would involve further potential benefits. They need less force, and can be electronically activated, which would help the elderly, the disabled and young children. The hon. Gentleman need not worry: I shall insist on being convinced that there is no significant risk of contamination of drinking water and no threat to public health before I proceed.
I presume that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there was a link between flush valves and advice not to drink tap water in continental Europe was yet another example of the Europhobia so often displayed by Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be particularly worried about France. He knows, however, that all European Union member states must comply with the stringent drinking water quality requirements in the drinking water directive. Indeed, countries outside Europe—the United States, Australia, New Zealand and many others—have valve systems, and experience no problems with the drinking of tap water. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not been to those countries—

Mr. Fabricant: I have.

Angela Eagle: Then perhaps he has a particularly delicate constitution.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the rate of leakage from valve systems. I do not dispute the fact that any seal—in time, or immediately if incorrectly installed— will leak, and that is obviously worrying. There is no point in introducing a valve system to conserve water if it fails to do so. A leaking valve will, however, cause noise, as water will be required to refill the cistern. That will make the problem obvious. If the committee recommends change, precautions can be taken or complementary schemes can be established to minimise the problem. We shall certainly want to ensure that any valves that are installed meet stringent performance standards.
The hon. Gentleman fears that, in the absence of water metering, people may not replace old and leaking valves, because they do not bear the additional cost of water that is wasted. I should have thought that the disturbance of a constantly refilling cistern would provide a sufficient incentive for what I understand is not a difficult DIY job, but I think it possible to encourage conservation with or without metering.
As the hon. Gentleman should know, the Government have reservations about the impact of widespread and compulsory metering of water for domestic use. Regulation and education of domestic customers can play an important part in cutting waste and over-consumption. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do about the effect


of the "hippo", especially in the larger cisterns that he mentioned—many of which, I suspect, lurk in this building.
The hon. Gentleman said that United Kingdom bathroom manufacturers would not be able to compete with foreign companies. Indeed, according to the Building Services Research and Information Association report from which he quoted, many manufacturers expressed that view. I think that they are being too pessimistic, however. If the hon. Gentleman has read the whole report, he will also know that distributors and importers expected much less market penetration by imported goods. The British sanitaryware industry currently exports more than it sells at home—and, indeed, exports flush valves. The hon. Gentleman should have more confidence in the industry's ability to compete: I certainly have.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: The industry is exceptionally important, not just to the Deputy Prime Minister but in my constituency, which contains Ideal-Standard and Caradon Twyford. It is an extremely successful industry, employing many people. Surely the last thing the Minister wants is damage to investment or employment prospects. Will she take such factors into account when considering the new water regulations?

Angela Eagle: As I thought I had explained to the hon. Gentleman, we will take exactly that kind of issue on board when making decisions—once we have the advisory committee's recommendations, that is. The hon. Lady need not fear that we shall not give careful consideration to the industry's concerns.
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, and has given me an opportunity to emphasise again just how committed the Government are to promoting water conservation. I welcome his comments about that.
We are currently undertaking reviews of water charging and abstraction licences, as well as considering new water regulations. Businesses that manufacture appliances, however, should understand that they must seek to improve water efficiency at every opportunity, rather than simply waiting until the regulations change. I look forward to any advances that the industry can make in creating appliances that are more water-efficient than those that we now have. The more ideas, the merrier; the better they work, the better it will be for all of us.
Before I resume my seat, let me emphasise that all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman will be taken into account. He has lifted the lid on the worries that exist in the industry. I hope that I have managed to reassure him that no precipitate action will be taken, but, should he have any other questions, I should be only too happy to write to him at his convenience and—I hope—put his mind at rest.

Top Withens, Haworth

Mrs. Ann Cryer: I am delighted to have been given the opportunity to speak briefly on a subject that has caused me some concern over the past two years. I also want to record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for replying to the debate: he must have many calls on his time in such a busy Department.
For the benefit of those less fortunate hon. Members who do not live in the West Riding, let me begin by explaining what and where Top Withens is. Top Withens, or what remains of it, is a much loved ruin—a sort of last outpost of human endeavour—standing in grand isolation on a vast windswept moor-top above the hamlet of Stanbury, which in turn stands above Haworth. All that is in my constituency.
Haworth contains the parsonage, now a museum, which is dedicated to the life and work of the Brontë sisters. Emily Brontë wrote her passionate, haunting book "Wuthering Heights" there, and a family friend, Ellen Nussey, subsequently explained that Emily had had Top Withens in mind when she described the position of Wuthering Heights with its "pure, bracing ventilation". Although there are differences in the architecture of the two buildings, Withens remains a point of pilgrimage for Brontë enthusiasts from around the world, and a focal point for walkers, as it stands yards from the Pennine way national trail.
In the early 1970s, we took many family walks to Top Withens, but, by the time my late husband was elected as Member of Parliament for Keighley in 1974, the remaining structure was beginning noticeably to disintegrate. One of his first campaigns, therefore, involved working for the listing of Top Withens and for its repair by the then Craven water authority. He was successful on both counts.
The old local authorities of the Pennine towns built many impressive reservoirs early in the century, partly to ensure a plentiful supply of water for the textile industry. They also bought up great tracts of moorland, which formed the catchment areas for their reservoirs. That is how, when the last Government gave away the family silver, Yorkshire Water plc came to be the owner of Withens and much of the magnificent moor on which it stands.
Two years ago, when I became Labour candidate for Keighley, I quickly discovered that all was not well with Top Withens. There were frequent letters in the local press, reports of meetings and correspondence between the Brontë Society and Yorkshire Water, all concerned about the disintegration of the ruin. A year ago, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Health, who was, as always, helpful, and reported to me that Withens had been de-listed in 1992, on the recommendation of English Heritage to the Department of the Environment, on the ground that it was "too altered". Inquiries through Councillor Mike Young of the Worth Valley ward elicited similar information.
I do not know whether the words "too altered" referred to changes since Top Withens was a working farm at the turn of the century, or changes that have occurred since its listing in 1974. If it is the former, English Heritage should bear in mind, if it troubles to preserve the


magnificent ruins of Rievaulx abbey, the fact that it is very "altered" since the days when it was a complete and working abbey. Should it be the latter, is it just that English Heritage can recommend de-listing simply because the owner of a building, through neglect, has altered its appearance? Surely that runs counter to the reasons for listing buildings worthy of preservation.
I had two reasons for requesting this Adjournment debate. First, I want to encourage Yorkshire Water plc to carry out the repairs that it has been promising for at least two years. I was hopeful that the publicity engendered by the debate would result in a massive letter-writing campaign, which would encourage Yorkshire Water to set about that overdue work. I am pleased to report that, as a result of pre-debate publicity, Yorkshire Water has given its word that work will commence next month
to spend £20,000, stabilising and reinforcing the existing structure to ensure it will remain a part of the local landscape for years to come, and be enjoyed by future generations of literary lovers".
I hope to find time during the recess to walk up to the site and check that the company has kept its word. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend could join me. I assure him that the view is well worth the vigorous walk.
My second reason for instigating the debate is to call for the re-listing of Top Withens, and I appeal for my hon. Friend's support. Despite the much appreciated assurance from Yorkshire Water, it has taken the company at least two years to reach this position. Although its present conservation and recreation officer may genuinely care for Top Withens, that may not be so in the future. In common with many other people, my memory goes back to two long, hot, dry summers of carrying buckets of water from baths to gardens, while Yorkshire Water decided, on grounds of financial expediency, to allow leaks to leak.
There have been some changes. However, only two weeks ago, Yorkshire Water directors awarded themselves bonuses of up to 40 per cent, of earnings, based not on customer or environmental care but on financial performance. With those thoughts uppermost in my mind, I believe that, although listing would not be waving a magic wand of eternal care, it would reassure me, the Brontë Society and thousands of others who have great affection for this ruin that my hon. Friend's Department is on our side and cares about the future of Top Withens.
As an unreconstructed relic of old Labour, I still feel that the only way to achieve effective regulation of this most basic of utilities is to have an element of public ownership and accountability. As that is not to be, listing is my best hope.
I pay tribute to the Brontë Society, which, largely through its unpaid members, does such excellent work to preserve the memory of those fine women, Charlotte, Emily and Anne Brontë, who have given such pleasure to so many for a century and a half.
Bradford council's countryside service is also worthy of mention, as it takes care of the Pennine way in that area, thus enabling walkers to visit Withens. That service built the small bothy that afforded shelter to walkers, when, as so often, conditions were harsh. The countryside service will apparently retain the bothy once Yorkshire Water has repaired the main structure.
I should like to give Emily Brontë the last word. Although this paragraph from her first chapter of "Wuthering Heights" is not the killer quote or punchline

that establishes Withens for all time as the inspiration for that book, for me it describes superbly the position of this memorial to a great author.
Wuthering Heights is the name of Mr. Heathcliff"s dwelling. 'Wuthering' being a significant provincial adjective, descriptive of the atmospheric tumult to which its station is exposed in stormy weather. Pure, bracing ventilation they must have up there at all times, indeed; one may guess the power of the north wind blowing over the edge, by the excessive slant of a few stunted firs at the end of the house; and by a range of gaunt thorns all stretching their limbs one way, as if craving alms of the sun.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on her first Adjournment debate. She did extremely well. Many of us remember Bob Cryer campaigning on a number of constituency issues, most memorable of which was the Carlisle-Settle railway. Knowing the stable from which my hon. Friend comes, I am sure that she will be a doughty champion for Top Withens. However, I disagree with her description of herself as a relic of old Labour. She may like to join us old Labour people: we describe ourselves as vintage Labour, which is slightly more in keeping with how we feel at the moment.
I am usually associated with my role as Sports Minister. It is strange that my duties include the listing of buildings. In local government terms, that would be like being the chairman of tramways and fine arts. It is a strange but enjoyable combination of responsibilities. It is enjoyable because it involves a great deal of subjectivity, and it gives me the opportunity to take decisions. I thought that that would be one of the joys of being a Minister, but it is difficult to take decisions, even when one wants to, given that I have to go as a supplicant to the tables of the people on the sports side and entreat them to see my point of view. But in this area one can take decisions, so I thoroughly enjoy this duty.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing Top Withens to my attention. I will be honest and admit that I had no knowledge of Top Withens until she described it. We listened to her advocacy of the site. I have only been able to get hold of a photocopy of a poor picture from "The Brontë Experience", which was sent to us by Keighley council. It does not do justice to the site. Indeed, the main part of its front page is a picture of Sir Clifford Richard talking Heathcliff. He is a national institution if ever there was one. I am sure that Sir Clifford will qualify for listed status fairly shortly.
I have not had the opportunity to look at the site. I understand that Top Withens is thought to date from the 17th century. As my hon. Friend said, it was once a small farmhouse with an attached barn. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and English Heritage say that it is now little more than a ruin. No one has claimed that the building has any great architectural merit, but it was listed on 24 October 1974 because of its association with the Brontës. The list description stated that it is thought to be
one of the buildings in which in part
Emily Brontë based "Wuthering Heights". However, the Department says that it has seen no hard evidence to support that claim, and that it was a mistake to have listed it in the first place.
That mistake was welcomed in the area, certainly by the Brontë Society. In considering whether the site should be re-listed, we shall have to examine further evidence. The Brontë Society must position it more accurately in the great saga of "Wuthering Heights".
We have a statutory obligation to consult English Heritage, whose opinions and views must be considered by Ministers before a decision is made. It says that we have to look at the architectural merits of a site and its historical interest. However, historical interest or association is by no means the same as literary association. There seems to be a lack of romanticism in English Heritage. I am not being disrespectful, but it gives me an essentially bureaucratic view. There are times when a literary association becomes an historical association; considerable subjectivity is involved.
Rievaulx abbey and the question whether there have been alterations is not a relevant comparison. English Heritage advises me that we are talking about something that is a ruin through neglect, rather than through alteration. My hon. Friend tells me that it is in a beautiful part of the country. Although it is off the beaten track, many people walk past it. I suspect that a number of them take pieces of it as souvenirs. That is regrettable. I understand that people feel that it is some sort of romantic link with the Brontës and "Wuthering Heights", but it is nevertheless a form of vandalism and we must prevent it. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend say that she had convinced Yorkshire Water to take its responsibility seriously in trying to protect the site.
I understand the concern in the area to protect Top Withens. I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly—as her late husband did—about Top Withens. She is not the only hon. Member from the general locality who has made representations to me about Top Withens. However, even though I said that this is an area where decisions can be made, and that I actually like making decisions, I cannot announce from this Dispatch Box that Top Withens will be re-listed. I will ask English Heritage to make a further assessment of Top Withens to see whether it can be re-listed and the mistake repeated—only this time it will be not a mistake, but a positive act by English Heritage and my Department.
I will take up my hon. Friend's kind invitation to come to see the site. There is good reason for doing so. It will be a walk in the country. She described it as a vigorous walk, but I am not a vigorous walker. If she wants a vigorous walker, I suggest that she extends an invitation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am more of an ambler. I should be more than happy to amble with her through the beautiful countryside and look at Top Withens. My hon. Friend has made a good case, and I want to see what she has described for myself before taking any further decisions.
I extend to my hon. Friend some considerable hope for the future of Top Withens. I congratulate her on raising the subject in the House, and thereby demonstrating the power of a Back Bencher to persuade Ministers.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o 'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Caribbean Banana Producers

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received concerning the interests of Caribbean banana producers; and if she will make a statement. [8356]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We have had a very large number of representations from many quarters. The banana industry is of crucial importance to the Windward Islands and also to Belize and Jamaica. We shall continue strongly to support favourable access to the European market by Caribbean banana producers.

Mr. Ross: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that when the World Trade Organisation panel's finding is made public we in Europe will be able to provide a transitional period for the Caribbean countries affected by the decision—whatever it is—so as to ensure that an adjustment programme is introduced to protect livelihoods, especially for small family producers? I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that we do not want those families to be devastated by the WTO panel's finding and to discover that pressure is put on them to move towards an alternative crop, such as those involved in the drugs industry.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As he knows, the European Commission has appealed against the WTO panel's finding that the European Union regime breaches the WTO rules. We cannot anticipate the outcome of that appeal, but I assure my hon. Friend that we shall press for as long a transitional period as possible to help our colleagues in the Commonwealth Caribbean. He is right that we are encouraging them to diversify into other products. If they diversify into drugs, it would be bad for us and bad for the United States. That message was given to President Clinton when he visited Barbados, and I hope that he will take note of it.

Mr. Wells: Will the Minister report to the House on how the banana regime is working? Can he tell us where the income from B licences, which the West Indian banana producers should enjoy, is actually going? Is it not extraordinary that the Government of St. Lucia are having to subsidise banana producers in their country when a huge amount of that money ought to be going to them?

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about the Caribbean, and especially about banana production. He will appreciate that I cannot give him a report off the top of my head, but I can assure him that I will write to him, deal with the points that he has raised and give him as full a report as possible.

Mr. Kaufman: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am receiving letters from death row prisoners in Jamaica

saying that the Jamaican Government are actively considering resuming hanging? Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Jamaican Government—

Madam Speaker: Order. Does this concern banana producers?

Mr. Kaufman: indicated assent.

Madam Speaker: Will the right hon. Member let me know how banana producers come into it?

Mr. Kaufman: I am extremely grateful for your guidance and correction, Madam Speaker. I was about to come to the banana regime. Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Jamaican Government, and to the Governments of other Caribbean countries with similar policies, that our support for the banana regime and other forms of economic aid must be dependent on rectification of human rights abuses in those countries?

Mr. Foulkes: My right hon. Friend has raised this matter on a number of occasions, including a very important Adjournment debate. I am sure that the whole House would not want our vital assistance to the Windward Islands to be in any way conditional. I think that my right hon. Friend would agree, however, that the fact that wages and working conditions for banana workers on the Caribbean smallholdings are much better than those on the central American plantations run by US companies is a very good social reason for supporting the Caribbean.

Mr. Goodlad: Bearing in mind the uncertainties mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) in relation to the World Trade Organisation, and also the uncertainties inherent in renegotiation of the Lomé convention, will the Minister reassure the House that our own aid budgets to our Commonwealth friends in the Caribbean will not be cut?

Mr. Foulkes: I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Mr. Godman: I am pleased to hear that Caribbean banana producers have the support of European Commissioners. When the Minister next meets Ministers from Germany and Italy in particular, will he impress on them the moral obligation that we have as a nation towards the people of the Caribbean? Quite apart from all else, including morality, Caribbean bananas are much better quality than the things coming in from central America.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have already described working conditions on Caribbean smallholdings, which are much better than those on central American plantations. My hon. Friend is also absolutely right about taste. I urge not only him but Opposition Members to eat more Caribbean bananas. The House can thereby set an example for the nation.

World Development Report

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will meet


representatives of the World bank to discuss their latest world development report; and if she will make a statement. [8357]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I have discussed the report, which is entitled "The State in a Changing World", with the president of the World bank. The key argument of the report—which I greatly welcome—is that we must strengthen public sector institutions so that adequate services can be provided to poor people. The report focuses on the best way to develop the state's capacity to produce adequate services and on how the private sector can assist in reaching that goal. I believe that publication of the report marks a significant shift from the old belief—from a previous era—in omnipotent states, and also from more recent mistakes based on market idolatry, to the realisation that states and markets alike make good servants but bad masters.

Mr. Luff: Does the right hon. Lady welcome the report's emphasis on the need to cut corruption in the developing world to increase state capability? Does she agree that some of the best ways of doing that include reducing subsidies and regulations, promoting large-scale privatisations and attacking state monopolies?

Clare Short: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman: we must always try to reduce corruption—as the Conservative party has learnt to its cost. The report suggests that we need a virtuous and efficient state. If we are to have efficient markets, we need a state that is an efficient regulator. It is a mistake to think that everything can be driven by markets. We require a lean, efficient state which regulates market forces well so that we can provide quality services for people and macro-economic conditions which draw in investment, especially into the poorest countries.

UK-US Aid Relations

Mr. Olner: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will meet the US ambassador to discuss bilateral UK-US aid relations. [8358]

Clare Short: I have met the United States ambassador twice, when we discussed a wide range of issues including the need for a strengthened United Nations and for greater commitment to poverty eradication.

Mr. Olner: I thank the Minister for her response. Perhaps one fruitful line for us to pursue with the United States is to reach a joint agreement ensuring, through our assistance to the former Yugoslavia, that the Dayton agreement is fully realised, particularly now that it is soon to expire. Will she also talk with the United States about the role of the World bank and perhaps about postponing its loan to Croatia?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will be unsurprised to hear that we did indeed talk about the situation in Bosnia. There is a renewed determination in the United States Government and the British Government to work in every way possible to achieve full implementation of Dayton and greater progress on such matters as refugee return. The United States is

reinvigorated in its commitment, and so are the United Kingdom Government. We have considered very sceptically the proposals for the World bank's loan to Croatia, in view of the conditions in that country.

Mr. Fabricant: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the United States is the largest giver of aid to the people of Cuba, although not to the Cuban Government? Will she use her best influences to determine whether the United Kingdom and the United States can work together in promoting freedom in Cuba while simultaneously not propping up its communist regime?

Clare Short: I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman's aim of a stable Cuba with more freedom and economic prosperity for all its people. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the United States Government differ with most European Governments on the best way to achieve that aim. It would be good to reach more agreement and make further progress towards the end which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we should all share.

Mr. Sheerman: When my right hon. Friend discusses those issues with the United States at the highest level, will she impress on her colleagues the importance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the value of our having rejoined it, and how good it would be for development throughout the world if the United States took the same decision?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Some time ago, President Clinton wrote to the director general of UNESCO, Mr. Mayor, to say that he hoped that the United States would rejoin. I am proud that we in this country have rejoined. One of the world's major objectives in poverty eradication is to get every child in the world—especially girls, who tend not to be in education in the poorest countries—into primary education by 2015. Much of the thinking and infrastructure to achieve that aim must come from UNESCO, which is a precious institution. It has increased its efficiency and we must strengthen it still further by being on the inside, rather than on the outside carping.

Aid Distribution

Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the steps that her Department is taking to ensure that aid from the United Kingdom (a) reaches and helps the world's poorest people and (b) is not kept by their Governments. [8359]

Clare Short: We have vigorous appraisal, monitoring, accounting and auditing procedures to ensure, so far as is humanly possible, that our development assistance is used for the purpose intended. The UK record is one of the best, although we must always be vigilant. We have strengthened our commitment to poverty eradication. Where possible, we hope to work in partnership with Governments to enlarge their capacity to provide basic services to the poor of their countries.

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Given that UNESCO cleaned up its act because the United Kingdom and the United States left


some years ago, how does the Secretary of State intend to ensure that any money that we give it is used wisely? After all, we have now re-entered UNESCO and that august body tends to deal at Government level.

Clare Short: If the hon. Gentleman considers the record, he will see that the improvement in the performance of UNESCO came with the appointment of the existing director general, who is widely admired throughout the world and has done an extremely good job. When one looks at the process of reform it is not true to say that the improvement was caused by countries leaving. In general, in all the United Nations institutions, we are determined to have the most powerful and efficient system possible so that we can achieve the current objective of a big advance in poverty eradication, which will in turn prevent conflict and war. We are working within the system and backing the Secretary-General's reform proposals to achieve those objectives.

Ann Clwyd: As aid to Indonesia has in the past been tied to arms deals, does my right hon. Friend see any good reason why Indonesia, which is not one of the world's poorest countries, should any longer receive aid from Britain?

Clare Short: It would be illegal for there to be any link between arms selling and aid, and I give my hon. Friend the absolute undertaking that under this Administration there will never be even a remote connection between aid spend and any arms trading. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been reviewing our aid policies throughout the world. In the case of Indonesia, we have a big project in relation to sustainable forestry and improving the livelihoods of poor people who live in the forests. That project has done some excellent work and will continue.
I am also considering whether we can do any useful work with non-governmental organisations in East Timor or in strengthening democratic trade unionism in Indonesia where, as my hon. Friend will know, there has been great oppression. That is the direction of my thinking on the programmes that we are rightly undertaking in Indonesia. I shall discuss with the House any further proposals that come forward.

Dr. Tonge: I thank the Minister for that reply, but may I press her further? Does she agree that the continuing sale of Hawk jets to Indonesia is damaging human rights in that country and damaging the poor in East Timor? Does she agree that the Government should revoke the export licence granted by the previous Government for Indonesia, especially as no financial penalties would be incurred in so doing?

Clare Short: As I am sure that the hon. Lady knows, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has made it clear that he will shortly make a statement on that area of policy. The hon. Lady would not expect me to pre-empt that today.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State agree that, while Governments have a role to play, nongovernmental organisations have sometimes done the best work in reaching the poorest people? Does she also agree

that they could perhaps co-operate better sometimes so as not to spend so much money on their own staffing rather than on reaching the poor to supply their needs?

Clare Short: I agree that the voluntary sector has done wonderful work across the world. That is clear evidence that the people of the United Kingdom have generous hearts and care about the morality of the suffering and poverty in the world. It is the duty of Governments and the voluntary sector to spend every penny as efficiently as possible. We want to work with Governments who share our aims of poverty eradication. If the capacity of a Government to deliver services to the poor in their country is strengthened, a permanent advance is made in the conditions for those poor people. Where that is not possible, we shall continue to work with nongovernmental organisations and we shall always look for the greatest possible efficiency.

Mr. David Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps one of the best ways of ensuring that aid reaches those who need it most is to give less cash and more materials and goods manufactured in this country and to make greater use of people in this country whose experience and assets could contribute to countries that need their skills?

Clare Short: With respect, I am not sure that I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Aid should be transitional. We should look forward to a day when there will be no aid because we have helped to develop in the poorest countries the capacity to provide services to their poor people and to create an economic climate to attract private investment. Creating flourishing economies in the poorest countries will also benefit our own economy, with more trade for everyone. We want progress along those lines. Rather than using people from Britain, it might be better to train a lot of people in a needy country, because that would create a larger capacity in that country, which would remain permanently.

Mr. Hunter: Given the importance of nongovernmental organisations in ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of our aid budget, is it the Government's policy to increase the proportion of that budget administered by non-governmental organisations?

Clare Short: As I hope that I have already made clear, it is our purpose, in signing up so firmly to the international poverty eradication targets, to look for partner Governments in the least developed countries—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) is disturbing the House.

Clare Short: We want to work with partner Governments who also sign up to the poverty eradication targets. If we can work together, in harmony with the World bank and other donors, there is a better prospect of securing a greater advance in the poorest countries. That is our preferred route, but it is not always possible to work in that way in all conditions and in all countries. In other situations, we work with NGOs. Our aim is to enlarge the capacity of poor countries to provide services to their poor


people and to create economic conditions that will attract investment and promote sustainable economic growth in those countries.

Child Labour

Mr. Pond: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department plans to take to discourage the exploitation of children in employment in developing countries. [8360]

Clare Short: I have already announced that we shall be strengthening our support for the efforts of the International Labour Organisation to eliminate hazardous and exploitative child labour, which includes the sexual exploitation of children for commercial purposes—the most abominable exploitation of all. Through our bilateral programmes, we are ready to support other initiatives in that area. We are supporting efforts in Britain to develop and monitor codes of conduct to ensure decent labour standards for adults and children in industries providing our imports.

Mr. Pond: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. She will be aware that there is also a major problem of illegal child employment in this country, which accounts for one third of working children throughout Europe. Would it not be the finest achievement for my right hon. Friend and her new Department to go down in history as the Wilberforce of the 21st century by helping to eradicate child exploitation throughout the world?

Clare Short: I thank my right hon. Friend, though I do not know that I can quite aspire to matching Wilberforce. The comparison with our own country is useful: it enables us to see the difference between the beneficial experience provided for children by the Saturday jobs that we have all done and the exploitation of children working too long hours. That must be our attitude both in this country and overseas, rather than a crude call for boycotts whenever there is any child labour. We must make sure that it is properly controlled, that it is in proper sectors and that the children are not being deprived of education. We must take the same approach in our own country as elsewhere. We have made a $1 million donation to the International Labour Organisation for its work on the new convention on the outlawing of hazardous and exploitative child labour.

Mr. David Davis: As Wilberforce was a predecessor in my constituency, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond). The Minister will know that in many countries with no welfare system the income from children in their low teens is a major part of a family's income, particularly if the parents are disabled. What would the Minister do if some of the initiatives to which she has referred meant that some families were left not just in poverty but facing starvation?

Clare Short: The right hon. Gentleman is right to make that point. There were moves in the United States to ban the import from Bangladesh of any products involving child labour. That led to many children from extremely poor families being thrown on to the street and becoming beggars, and sometimes becoming involved in child prostitution.
We must have an intelligent approach which stops the most hazardous and exploitative use of children, particularly in the commercial sex industry. There are parts of the world where children are traded for such purposes. That is intolerable and we must do all that we can to prevent it. In very poor countries we must seek to control child labour rather than outlawing it and to ensure that children receive some education: it should not be labour at the price of the rest of their lives. The right hon. Gentleman is right in his fundamental approach.

Development Education

Mr. Hope: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has for developing the scope and extent of development education in supporting the work of her Department. [8361]

Mr. Foulkes: We are undertaking a radical rethink of the Department's communications work with a view to increasing public awareness and support for our plans for poverty elimination to be set out in the forthcoming White Paper.
I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) on hosting in the House the very successful launch of the Global Youth Work Advisory Service, which I was able to attend together with a Minister from the Department for Education and Employment. The service will make a positive contribution to our work.

Mr. Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his positive and generous reply. Does he agree that we need a comprehensive strategy involving schools, adult education colleges, universities and the wider media to educate people of all ages and to raise public awareness of the globalised world in which we live and the impact that globalisation is having on our everyday lives?

Mr. Foulkes: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our targets will include not just schools and youth groups but business groups, consumers, tourists and trade unions. We intend to produce a short, popular version of the White Paper which will be available for discussion in schools and for consideration by Church groups and others.

Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister give every encouragement to twinning arrangements between schools in this country and schools in the developing world, similar to that of Ansford school in my constituency? Does he see that as a way of promoting, for example, female education in developing countries, which many people feel is particularly important?

Mr. Foulkes: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman. We are encouraging what we prefer to call partnerships between schools in the United Kingdom and in developing countries rather than twinning arrangements, which sometimes have unfortunate connotations in local government. We want to use schools such as that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman as models or exemplars for others in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland.

Promotion of Democracy

Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to ensure that overseas aid from her Department is used to promote democracy in the third world. [8362]

Clare Short: As part of our human rights approach to development and the elimination of poverty—we must address people's material needs and their right to dignity and their own voice—we will give special attention to the rights of poor and disadvantaged people and the need to ensure that their voice is heard in Government.

Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that in many third-world countries there is very little, if any, multi-party democracy as we know it here? Will she give priority within her funding programmes to those projects, often small community projects, which provide people with the potential and the power to have an input into the internal politics of their country?

Clare Short: There are far more multi-party democracies around the world now than there were 20 years ago. There has been enormous progress, especially in Africa, and we want to strengthen and deepen those democratic movements. We all share the objective of bolstering democratic forces; the question is how to do that most effectively. Given that our work focuses on the needs of the poorest, working with them to ensure that their voice is heard in the political system will be the focus of our efforts.

Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give an indication of the Government's policy regarding Kenya? As chairman of the all-party group on east Africa, I have a special interest in the subject. Has her Department considered withdrawing aid from Kenya in the light of the atrocities that have recently occurred there?

Clare Short: We are very worried indeed by the situation in Kenya. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), has been out to Kenya and had talks with the Government there about the nature of Britain's worries. We are monitoring the situation closely and have been reviewing our aid contributions.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concern: it would be a tragedy if Kenya were to become more repressive and cut off from the rest of the world. However, we cannot tolerate that sort of behaviour and continue to contribute the level of aid donations that Britain has historically given to Kenya.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the welcome new focus on poverty eradication does not imply a downgrading of conditionality, especially in the Commonwealth under the Harare declaration?

Clare Short: I believe that the idea of signing up, absolutely clear-mindedly, to the international poverty eradication targets actually refines the idea of conditionality, because we can then look for partner Governments who share those targets. We can then work

in partnership with those donor countries and the Government of the developing country to eradicate poverty. That is the way we want to work. Conditionality becomes partnership, but it is focused entirely on successful poverty eradication. It is a two-way relationship, not just conditions imposed by us. It is a partnership based on a clear commitment by both sides to work firmly and clear-mindedly for poverty eradication.

Trade Barriers

Mr. Flight: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received about the reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers in developing countries. [8363]

Clare Short: Developing countries consistently stress the importance that they attach to improved access to European Union markets. That is a priority for the Government. We have made a start by agreeing to extend access to EU markets to the nine least developed countries which do not benefit from the Lomé convention.

Mr. Flight: Looking at the other side of the coin, it is observable that the least successful developing economies tend to have the most closed external tariff regimes. Are the Government keeping an effective register of the tariff regimes and non-tariff barriers to trade of developing economies? Are they also collaborating with both the International Monetary Fund and the World bank in our aid policy to encourage more open trade policies for those economies which are most in need?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The thinking on trade in past eras was that weak economies had to protect themselves with high tariffs, but we have seen that that did not lead to development in most of the neediest countries, especially those in sub-Saharan Africa. The evidence is clear that it is beneficial to those economies to open up their markets to trade, but in a phased way which gives them a chance to develop their own capacity.
That theme will be crucial to the thinking that goes into the Lomé renegotiation—a phasing of opening up in a way that enables the poorest countries to develop the capacity to draw in investment and strengthen their own base. Getting that right is one of the major issues of the next period.

United Nations

Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the outcome of her discussions at the UN General Assembly special session in New York. [8364]

Clare Short: At the UN General Assembly special session in New York last month we stressed that tackling poverty and protecting the environment are inextricably linked and that the commitment to poverty eradication is the bridge that unites countries of the north and south. The special session agreed that all countries must have sustainable development strategies in place by 2002. My Department hopes to work in partnership with developing countries on the preparation of such plans.

Mr. Corbett: I thank my right hon. Friend and congratulate her and the rest of the delegation on pressing


for the tackling of poverty and the environment at one and the same time. Will she describe the reaction to the Government's firm commitment to reverse the decline in the aid budget which took place under the previous Administration?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that the countries of the industrialised world and of the developing world were deeply divided when they came to the special session because the industrialised countries had failed to keep the promises that they made at Rio, where they committed themselves to eradicating poverty. It was the British delegation that re-emphasised that objective and the commitment to reverse the decline in aid. That helped to change the mood of the conference. Thereafter, the negotiators tried to use our statement wording to bring about unity in the world—and nearly succeeded.
Many British people working in the UN system said after that meeting that they felt proud of their country in a way that they had not for a long time. That is quite humbling, but it shows the role that Britain can play in the world. We can all be enormously proud of the growing links between the poorer countries and the industrialised countries, and we hope for a more civilised future in which the environment will be protected and poverty eliminated.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 July. [8386]

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had ministerial meetings with colleagues and attended a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party. Later today I shall have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Bayley: Based on his visit to the Nestlé international research centre in York, does the Prime Minister accept that York has become not just a United Kingdom, but a European, centre of excellence in bioscience? It has 1,500 food scientists and bioscientists working for international companies, four MAFF agencies and a university with a 5* rating in bioscience research. Does my right hon. Friend agree that York would be the ideal location for the executive arm of the food standards agency? Will he ask the relevant Ministers to consider the York bid seriously?

The Prime Minister: I well remember my visit to Nestlé. I know that York's claims to be the location for the food standards agency are strong, particularly since the Meat Hygiene Service is already located there. My hon. Friend will understand that those claims have to be considered in accordance with the usual procedures and in line with other claims being pressed on us, but I can assure him that we will give them the utmost consideration.

Mr. Hague: I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that the whole House should welcome any ceasefire in Northern Ireland which might allow people to live without

the threat of terrorist violence. We all hope that it is not a cynical tactic but the beginning of a genuine and lasting renunciation of violence.
In that spirit, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm the assurance that he gave me in the House four weeks ago—that there will be no question of substantive negotiations with Sinn Fein proceeding without early parallel decommissioning of illegal terrorist weapons?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he was going to raise this topic and for the support that he has given the Government.
The position is and must remain that the ceasefire in Northern Ireland must be clear and unequivocal and tested in both word and deed.
There have been statements in certain parts of the press and elsewhere that the Government's position on decommissioning has changed. It has not changed in any way. It is our desire to see decommissioning during the course of the negotiations. It is precisely for that reason that we have put in place a scheme under which an independent commission will be established. We want a decommissioning scheme available for discussion when negotiations begin on 15 September. We are trying to find a way through the current impasse, but we will do so in a way fully consistent with the principles that we have set out.

Mr. Hague: I welcome the Prime Minister's assurance that the Government's position has not changed. Can he confirm his assurance that progress can be made only by agreement in the talks, reached on the basis of sufficient consensus, and confirm that he has no intention of seeking to impose solutions?

The Prime Minister: We certainly want to ensure that those elements of what was called by the previous Prime Minister the triple lock remain in place—that an agreement should be negotiated, not imposed, that there should be a referendum which confirms the agreement and that it should be agreed also by the British Parliament.
Things are at a very difficult stage at the moment. We welcome the ceasefire. We are not in the slightest bit dewy eyed about it; we understand the cynicism that many people in Northern Ireland must feel about it, but we still believe that it is better to have the ceasefire than not, and it is better—if we can do so consistent with principle—to have people talking rather than fighting.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the worry that many of us will have about access to further and higher education will be that people might be deterred because of financial circumstances? Specifically, will he consider the issue of longer courses such as medicine and the Scottish four-year honours degree, which I very much hope will be retained? Those courses might cause considerable difficulties if we do not think carefully where we are going. I seek reassurance from my right hon. Friend on those questions. [8387]

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend can be given those assurances. First, in relation to higher education in Scotland, we will of course consider very carefully the special position of Scotland.
Without in any way prejudging the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is about to make, I can tell my hon. Friend that there will be proper protection for low-income families. We will not tolerate people being put off going to university as a result of the means of their parents. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is that we want a loans system that is fair and geared to people's ability to pay. That will also be part of the settlement. Point No. 3 is that we do not want additional parental contributions. Point No. 4 is that we must get more money into our university system.
We face a clear choice. If we want to increase student numbers and raise the amount of investment in universities, and we were to do it with taxpayers' money, it would cost a very substantial amount—something that people simply would not tolerate—so we must look for a better way to do it. Dearing was set up as an all-party initiative by the previous Government.
I believe that decisions on the funding of post-16 education must be taken in the interests of the long-term future of Britain and we will not shrink from taking them.

Mr. Ashdown: rose—

Hon. Members: Get on the other side.

Madam Speaker: Order. This is time-consuming.

Mr. Ashdown: Is not it curious that the Conservative party, which in government welcomed and called for cross-party co-operation wherever it could get it, including on Northern Ireland, now in opposition criticises it whenever anyone else engages in it? It is Conservatives' hypocrisy that lost them power weeks ago and it is Conservatives' hypocrisy that will keep them out of power for years to come.
Leaving aside for a moment the procedural wrangling, is not the central question in the Northern Ireland situation this—thanks to the courage of some Unionists at the time of the marching season and the response that we have received from some of the nationalist community, Northern Ireland now has an opportunity for peace which many believed it would not have again and which if lost now may not come again for a long time to come? Are not the wishes of the Northern Irish people and the duty of their representatives absolutely clear—to break away from the procedural wrangling and get down to the substance of the talks?

The Prime Minister: In relation to the first part of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I thought that he did rather well, so I have nothing to add. Secondly, I agree entirely with what he said about Northern Ireland. There is the opportunity for peace. I understand the concerns, especially among those in the Unionist community. I would simply say that, two weeks ago, we were being accused of betrayal and treachery by elements of the nationalist community over Drumcree. This is a difficult situation. I know why members of the Unionist party felt they had to vote against the decommissioning agreement today. I am pleased that the leader of the Ulster Unionists is not walking out of those talks. We shall try to find a way through because, in the end, that is in the interests of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland and that is what they want to see.

Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful for the Prime Minister's statement. Does he agree that, while the remaining months

of the summer may offer a pause for reflection and for the taking of breath, unless the Northern Ireland politicians can begin to achieve together some progress once autumn comes, we may once again face failure in the whole process?

The Prime Minister: We must proceed on the basis of the principles that we set out, in particular that the ceasefire must be clear and unequivocal and the consent principle, which is at the heart of our approach to the issue of Northern Ireland. The most important thing, and the reason we want to try and find a way through the impasse of decommissioning, is that for almost 18 months talks have been going on but there have been no talks about the substance of the lasting political settlement in Northern Ireland. I am concerned to find a way through that impasse so that at long last we can talk about the nature of that lasting political agreement. There is support among the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, at least around the two basic principles: some form of devolution—a devolved Assembly for Northern Ireland— and some form of north-south co-operation. There are tremendous disagreements about the detail of those but there is support for those two principles, so the sooner we can get on to debating the substance, the sooner we can build the lasting political settlement that we need.

Ms Moran: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming not only the IRA ceasefire but moves by all parties who have at their heart the interests of peace in Northern Ireland? Will he confirm that the timetable that he set out previously for the substantive talks that he just mentioned will be adhered to and will progress with all speed?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Not many elements in this situation command virtually an entire consensus, but one of the elements that does is the desire of all people to see us get on with the substantive negotiations. That is why we set out the timetable a short time ago. We shall keep to that timetable and we shall continue to ensure that we get it through.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Prime Minister aware—

Mr. Skinner: Play your cards right for a Cabinet Committee place.

Mr. Welsh: I shall try again. Is the Prime Minister aware of our concerns about welfare-to-work participants' access to choice, which will be either restricted or non-existent? Will he guarantee that youngsters will have access to all four choices before their benefits are cut from the princely sum of £38.90 to zero? [8388]

The Prime Minister: The important thing is that the choices are there for young people. There is not the choice of simply remaining on benefit because that is in the interests of neither young people nor the country. It is essential that we get those young people off benefit and into work. We are offering not Mickey Mouse schemes but quality skills, education and work programmes. We have been delighted with the response from the private sector. We believe and hope that a large proportion of the


proposals that we shall make to those young people will involve the private sector, and a range of choices will be on offer to them.

Mr. Benn: Will the Prime Minister confirm the full briefing given by No. 10 yesterday that a Cabinet consultative Committee is to be set up under his chairmanship, that Sir Robin Butler will sit on it, that Liberal Democrat Members of the House will be on it and that they will be required to sign the Official Secrets Act and thus receive information that will be disclosed neither to the House nor to hon. Members who are not party to that arrangement? Did he notice that The Independent this morning describes this as an unprecedented constitutional move and says that on earlier occasions, in 1931 and 1977, Prime Ministers made statements about instituting changes of this kind?

The Prime Minister: First, it is not unprecedented. My right hon. Friend mentioned some of the precedents. Secondly, in relation to the terms of reference and the membership of the Committee, parliamentary questions will be answered on that. Thirdly, even if it were unprecedented, I say that if it is the right thing to do, why not do it?

Mr. Hawkins: Will the parents of pupils at grant-maintained secondary schools in towns such as Uxbridge all be given a vote on whether those schools retain grant-maintained status? [8389]

The Prime Minister: Those parents will be given the same opportunities as others, under the White Paper. The proposals leave a substantial measure of control in the hands of grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Derek Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom can prosper in the information society only if we use all the skills and talents of all our people? Does not that require driving up the quality of higher education and substantially widening access? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in the Government's response to Dearing, nothing will be done to restrict access to higher education of students from poor families, mature students, ethnic minority students and disabled people?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can assure my right hon. Friend that our proposals will be designed to safeguard the position of low-income families. He will hear that clearly when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment speaks in a moment. Moreover, we have issued the proposals because we want to extend the possibility of higher education to more people. The Dearing committee was established precisely because people realised that the present system was not working. The previous Government were obliged to put a cap on the number going into higher education because of that.
It is not true to say that this is the first time the issue of tuition fees has ever been discussed. Part-time students, students in further education colleges and postgraduate students are familiar with it. We need a system that is fair,

does not involve additional parental contribution, is linked to students' ability to pay and safeguards the country for the long term. That is what we will provide.

Mr. Hague: Will the Prime Minister confirm that his Welsh Assembly would have no powers over the police, even though a Scottish Parliament would have such powers?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The Welsh Assembly will not have powers in the same way as it will have powers in relation to schools and hospitals, but as I said in Wales on Friday, it will be able to debate issues concerning law and order and it will have direct influence, because local government is one of the things that will be devolved to the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Hague: Why, then, did the Prime Minister tell people in south Wales last week that a Welsh Assembly would run the police and have powers over law and order? To use his phrase of a moment ago, if he thought that it was the right thing to do last Friday, why not get on and do it?

The Prime Minister: As I said last Friday—I have just explained this to the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No you have not."] With all due respect to the Conservative party, perhaps Opposition Members should listen to a party that got some Welsh Members of Parliament rather than to a party that lost them all. However, Conservative Members do not like to listen, which is why they are in opposition and why they will stay there.
As I said in Wales last Friday, the Welsh Assembly will have the chance to influence law and order in the Principality but, as I made clear, there will not be the same powers as in relation to schools and hospitals.

Mr. Hague: Waffling and wriggling will not get the Prime Minister out of the question. Let me remind him of what he said.
A Welsh Assembly means decisions about schools, hospitals and law and order can be taken here".
Why was that the Prime Minister's policy last Friday, when he was in Wales, but not this week, when he is in London? Let us get this straight. He said that the Scottish Parliament would be a parish council and then that it would not be. He promised to publish the devolution Bills before the referendums and then said that he would not. He said that a Welsh Assembly would run the police and now he says that it will not. Are not people entitled to be worried that these must be pretty ill-thought-out proposals if he cannot even understand them himself?

The Prime Minister: I repeat my answer for the third time. The Leader of the Opposition quoted one part of my remarks in relation to law and order and not the other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Aah."] If he reads my comments, he will see that that is so. As to devolution more generally, the Conservative party has just agreed that there should be a Londonwide body, with an elected mayor, to oversee the governance of London. Let me quote the leader of Wandsworth council. [HON. MEMBERS: "The question is about Wales."] Opposition Members do not want to hear


it. He said that it was time that Londoners had a voice for London. If it is good enough for London, why is it not good enough for Wales?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Prime Minister congratulate our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the tough and effective way in which he negotiated a deal in Europe on bovine spongiform encephalopathy and beef imports? Does not it show that the way forward is to sit down and talk to the Europeans, who then respond positively?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the agreement that he secured last night. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is absolutely right to say that that is the proper way to negotiate. Moreover, the agreement negotiated by my right hon. Friend was precisely the agreement that the previous Government tried, and failed, to negotiate. Once again, we are showing the way to govern.

Mr. Streeter: I am sorry that the Prime Minister is having such a bad day. [Interruption.] Perhaps I can ask him an easier question, which he might be able to answer. What did he mean when he said in Scotland that sovereignty would rest with him, as an English Member of Parliament? [8390]

The Prime Minister: As I explained a million times at the time, sovereignty remains with the United Kingdom Parliament, of which both the hon. Gentleman and I are Members—in case he had not noticed.

Mr. Radice: Following the speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Chatham house last Thursday, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to introduce a national debate on the pros and cons of a single currency?

The Prime Minister: The measures that we are taking were set out in the Chancellor's speech. It is important that we have a proper national debate about the issue, because it will affect us, whether we are in or out of the single currency. It is therefore important to ensure that the business and financial sectors and others are fully prepared while the Government retain the option of whether to join.

Mr. Swayne: Can the Prime Minister really be satisfied with the fact that, yesterday, his senior ex-ministerial colleague, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), described his Welsh devolution proposals as a "constitutional mystery tour"? [8392]

The Prime Minister: I have not come across the hon. Gentleman before, but I gather from my hon. Friends that virtually everything is a mystery to him. I prefer the words of the Conservative Welsh Office spokesman in the Lords until 1994, who said:
The current status quo is untenable … The Assembly is the only way forward that is on the table.

Ms Keeble: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the results of the Nationwide building society

ballot, which found three to one in favour of the existing directors and therefore of the building society's retaining its mutual status? Does he agree that that is a sign that many people are turning away from the quick buck and towards more long-term care in their financial planning?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was delighted to see the result and I think that the right decision was made.

Mr. Richard Allan: Is the Prime Minister aware of the legal advice given recently to the World Development Movement that the Government could cancel, without penalty, export licences granted by the previous Government? In view of that advice, will he confirm now that no more Hawk jets will be exported to Indonesia? [8393]

The Prime Minister: No. The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that he will take a decision on this in respect of the criteria that we have already laid down. If there is any decision to revoke licences, it will, of course, be notified to the House, but the position is not as the hon. Gentleman just set it out.

Mr. Reed: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend— [HON. MEMBERS: "Reeding."] I think that Opposition Members should—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Reeding."] May I congratulate my right hon. right Friend on delivering our election promise for Scottish and Welsh devolution? Does he share my belief that the people of the English regions, including the best known and well-loved east midlands region, should benefit as soon as practicable from the same benefits as will result from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend should not be put off at all by the jeering of Opposition Members. Whenever we talk of keeping election promises, they do not quite understand it. It is an alien language to them, but we are trying to tutor them.
In relation to devolution and decentralisation, yes, it is important that decentralisation happens in English regions as well. That is why many parts of business and industry are co-operating with local authorities in the east midlands, the north-east and elsewhere. They think that it is in the interests of their region. That is a better way than the government by quango that we suffered under the Conservatives.

Mr. Burstow: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Royal College of Nursing is about to ballot its members at St. Helier NHS trust hospital in Carshalton over the possibility of working to contract to demonstrate their concerns about the pressures on the accident and emergency department at that hospital? Does he accept that the RCN would not be undertaking such an initiative unless it had grave concerns about that department? Therefore, can he give my constituents an assurance that, this winter, they will not face the prospect of waiting for hours on hospital trolleys as they did last winter under the previous Government? [8394]

The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason and because of the difficulties experienced by many hospitals throughout the country that we have pledged to put


£1.2 billion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Next year."]—next year into the national health service. That allows health authorities to plan ahead to a far greater extent than at present and it is why we have got rid of the wasteful, inefficient, Conservative internal market, so that money that is spent in the national health service is spent on patient care rather than on more accountants and bureaucrats, which is what happened under 18 years of Conservative government. I say to the hon. Gentleman and to people in the health service that it will take time to put it right, but at least they have a Government who are starting to put it right. I think that they welcome that.

Mr. Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposals of United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan for a fundamental modernisation of the United Nations deserve widespread support throughout the world and that there is now no excuse whatever for the United States Congress to block repayment of the arrears that they owe?

The Prime Minister: As I said in the House, I think a week ago, we very much support the reform programme of the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, and want to see that the arrears of the United States are properly taken care of. We believe that that is possible. There is a different mood about since the reform programme was started by the Secretary-General. We will play our full part in ensuring that the arrears are cleared and that the Secretary-General's reform programme is put through.

Mr. Evans: What action is the Prime Minister taking to assist international hauliers based in this country? As he knows, they have been hit by the high value of the pound, which is making them less competitive with their foreign competitors, and that has been exacerbated by three interest rate rises since the Government took power. They have also been hit by strikes in Greece, Spain and France, where their lorries either could not work or, even worse, were damaged. These British companies are still waiting for compensation to come through. We have all heard about this wonderful new co-operation that the Prime Minister

has with our European neighbours. Will he now sit down with his European counterparts and ensure that these British companies get their compensation? [8395]

The Prime Minister: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman recognises the benefits of a co-operative approach. We will do our best to do what he says. We are of course trying to obtain compensation; we are also trying to clean up the very significant mess that the last Government left for us in respect of compensation and other matters.
Let me take up what the hon. Gentleman said about interest rates. The plain fact is that interest rates have had to go up because the Government he supported failed to take the necessary action. They failed to take it on the Budget deficit and they failed to take it when inflation began to come back into the system. We will not go back to the days of Tory boom and bust. This Government will run the economy efficiently.

North-east Wales (Visit)

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to visit north-east Wales. [8396]

The Prime Minister: I was in Wales last Friday. I have no immediate plans to visit north-east Wales, but I should be delighted to do so at a later time.

Mr. Jones: May I persuade my right hon. Friend to visit the British Aerospace Airbus factory in my constituency, which employs 2,800 of the most successful and skilful aeroplane makers imaginable? Is my right hon. Friend aware that they make the wings of the European Airbus and hope to make those of the future large aircraft? Do the Government intend to ensure that that project becomes airborne? My constituents want it to be backed by Britain, so that they can make the wings of the aircraft.

The Prime Minister: We strongly support the Airbus project. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to all the employees in his constituency and elsewhere who have contributed so much to it. If there is any application for assistance we shall, of course, have to consider it in the normal way, but we are fully behind the project. It is a very exciting project for the future and it will help to guarantee that the skills that are so desperately needed for the economy will remain in this country.

Higher Education

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me obtain a little quiet for the Secretary of State. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please leave quietly and quickly? We are waiting to hear the statement.

Mr. Blunkett: With permission, I wish to make a statement about the publication today of the report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education.
The Government are very grateful—as I am personally—to Sir Ron Dearing, the chairman of the inquiry, and to the 16 members of his committee. Their work has been completed in record time, and in a manner for which we are all extremely grateful.
Today, the Government announce a new deal for higher education, involving new funding for universities and colleges, free higher education for the less well-off, no parent having to pay more than at present and a fair system of repayment linked to ability to pay.
Our university system is in crisis. Our competitors in north America and the far east—the Asian tigers—have many more young people in higher education. In the United States, the proportion is about 40 per cent., and in Canada it is 44 per cent. Those countries recognise the need to invest in their people, mirroring the investment in fixed capital and equipment of the past. Such countries are expanding higher education rapidly. Business in this country recognises that need as well.
One young person in three now enters higher education, compared with one in 20 in the early 1960s. Half the students in higher education are over the age of 21, and a third of them are part time. Public funding per student has fallen by about 25 per cent, over the past decade, with consequences for the quality of teaching, seminar work, materials and investment. Yet the increase in participation among socio-economic groups A to C has been double that of groups D and E. The present system is clearly not working.
The same level of funding for students today as existed in the 1970s would cost the taxpayer an extra £4 billion per year. That level, with increased participation— towards 40 per cent.—would cost an additional £2 billion by 2015. Taken together, such changes would add up to 3p in the pound to the basic rate of tax.
The previous Government placed a cap on the expansion of higher education, created the present mix of loans, grants and parental contributions and failed to address the financial implications of the further development of the sector. However, with cross-party agreement, they established the Dearing inquiry, accepting that the status quo was no longer an option. Everybody recognised that our higher education system was in dire need of attention. It has faced both funding problems and huge anomalies.
Tuition is free for some, but 500,000 part-time students in higher education and many of the 2 million further education students are expected to pay fees and receive little or no maintenance support.
The committee was given the task of ensuring maximum participation in higher education, enhancing standards and quality and ensuring fair and transparent means of student support, while obtaining value for money.
The Government endorse the aims and purposes of higher education set out by the committee, building on the Robins committee report of 30 years ago. "Higher Education in the Learning Society" is a coherent and thoughtful report that provides a vision of the future.
The committee's recommendations cover the local and regional role of higher education, the qualifications framework, academic standards, the role of information technology, management and governance of institutions and the quality of teaching and research. We shall consider those recommendations over the summer.
We welcome the committee's proposals for widening participation, including its emphasis on groups that are currently under-represented. Later this year, we shall set out our comprehensive response in a White Paper on lifelong learning. Today, I shall give an initial response to set out a clear direction.
The committee recognises that we cannot afford further improvement or expansion of higher education on the basis of current funding arrangements. Students should share both the investment and the advantages gained from higher education: rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. The investment of the nation must be balanced by the commitment of the individual: each will gain from the investment made. Graduates gain considerably from higher education. Compared with non-graduates, graduates see their earnings rise on average by as much as £4,000 for every £20,000 of earnings.
Dearing believes that the present loan system is unfair, unworkable and ineffective. He recommends that loans should be paid back over a longer period to help poorer students; that parents should not be asked for higher contributions; that a £1,000 tuition fee for everyone— which is roughly 25 per cent, of the average cost of a course—should be added to the loan; and that some element of maintenance grant should be retained.
We accept a great many of the broad principles laid out by Sir Ron. We intend to build on the committee's preferred option, and to take it together with the proposal in our policy statement, "Lifelong Learning".
We must develop a more efficient system than the present confusion of loans, grants and parental contributions. For lower-income families, instead of the remaining grant, students' living costs will be covered by a maintenance loan of the same value as the current grant and loan package. An additional maintenance loan equivalent to the tuition fee will be available to students from higher-income families. We shall, however, ensure that the poorest students do not have to pay fees. That is the best way of encouraging access to free education for the least well-off. We are equally determined to ensure that there is no increase in parental contributions.
Our response to Dearing ensures that fees and maintenance together do not place an increased burden on middle-income families. At present, parents are expected to contribute up to £2,000 for maintenance.
The committee proposes that repayments should be made on an income-contingent basis. We accept that, but the committee's funding options also assume that


repayments should begin when a graduate's income reaches £5,000. We do not believe that that is acceptable. We shall consult on a higher starting point for repayment. We also believe that repayments should be over a longer period and set at a lower level of annual repayments than is proposed by the committee. A supplementary hardship loan of £250 per year will also be available.
We are also minded to accept the committee's recommendation that students with special needs should receive the specific grant on a non-means-tested basis. We shall consider the need for appropriate measures, such as bursaries for students entering teacher training and some health and social care professional courses. Employers in other fields may wish to consider similar measures.
We intend that these proposals should apply to all new students and we are examining how best such changes might be phased in. In addition, I assure the House today that top-up fees play no part in the Government's proposals. No university or college should proceed on the basis of introducing such additional fees.
The Government will also be considering how the new arrangements will apply to the particular situation of higher education in Scotland.
The proposals will mean more money for universities. The Government will ensure that savings are used to improve quality, standards and opportunity for all in further and higher education. Change is essential if we are to maintain the skills and research base of our country. We cannot defer action to another generation. Our preferred solution secures equity, access, quality and accountability. Our proposals retain the principle that repayments should be made on the basis of future income, not present circumstances.
Today's report presents major challenges, which every Member of this House will have to address. I recommend to the House that we take on this challenge with clarity and courage. To do otherwise would be to betray the next generation. Building on the report, we shall produce a system that will be fair, and will be good for students, for parents, for the universities, for business and for Britain.
This Government are facing the future with confidence. We have the will to take the difficult decisions and to ensure the investment needed for the future of our nation.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I take points of order after statements. I shall call the hon. Gentleman then.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I thank the Secretary of State for sending me an advance copy of Sir Ron Dearing's report. I echo the right hon. Gentleman's thanks to Sir Ron and his committee for a huge piece of work on the future of our higher education system.
That is the end of the facts. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that his statement will be met with widespread disappointment, not only on the Benches behind him but throughout the higher education world. That disappointment will turn to anger when people realise the scale of the lost opportunity that the Government have allowed to pass and the scale of the right hon. Gentleman's defeat at the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury.
The consistent theme of the Chancellor is, in the words of Fagin to the Artful Dodger, "You've got to pick a pocket or two." First the Government picked the pockets of the pension funds, then on Monday they picked the pockets of the national lottery and now they are picking the pockets of students and their families from the low-income sections of our community.
Sir Ron Dearing's committee was established with bipartisan support. The committee was established because both the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), and the right hon. Gentleman recognised that higher education had expanded under the previous Government. They wanted a review of the structure of higher education, to allow it to proceed in the next 30 years on an affordable basis, as the Robins report had done 30 years ago.
Sir Ron Dearing's committee produced 400 pages of important recommendations, and we heard the Secretary of State's reaction to only one of them—and that was to reject it. What does he have to say on the objectives set out in Sir Ron Dearing's report, on increased participation by young people in university and higher education? Does the Secretary of State agree with those objectives? We did not hear that. Does he agree with Sir Ron Dearing and his committee that we should introduce a more flexible structure of qualification following higher education? We did not hear that. Does the Secretary of State agree with Sir Ron Dearing and his committee that we need a review of the settlement of academic pay? We did not hear a word about that from the Secretary of State.
I believe that I am right in saying that the word "research" hardly touched the Secretary of State's lips this afternoon. He set out nothing in response to Sir Ron Dearing's recommendations on the future of research in higher education. In particular, Sir Ron Dearing sets out his assessment of the extra resources needed in higher education from next April. His figure is £350 million. Do the Government agree with that figure? If they do, where is the money coming from? If they do not, where do the Government disagree with Sir Ron Dearing and his committee? To none of those questions did the Secretary of State give any form of answer.
The Secretary of State said in his statement:
The proposals will mean more money for universities.
The vice-chancellors, academic staffs and student bodies of British universities want to know from the Secretary of State this afternoon how much money he is promising them, or is it simply another vague promise that will be delivered some time or never?
In his statement, the Secretary of State answered only one question, on undergraduate finance. He was crystal clear, and said:
For lower-income families, instead of the remaining grant … costs will be covered by a maintenance loan".
It is in black and white. It is a one-off hit of an extra £5,000, which has to be found by lower-income students and their families. That is the right hon. Gentleman's policy: extra state guaranteed loans for well-off young people from Islington and a kick in the teeth for low-income families from Sheffield. It was a policy that was specifically examined and specifically rejected by Sir Ron Dearing and his committee, because it was thought to be inequitable and inconsistent with the objective that the right hon. Gentleman set out at the beginning of his statement—that of widening access.
Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement is a major lost opportunity for British higher education, and a shabby and opportunistic smash-and-grab raid on the budgets of low-income families?

Mr. Blunkett: I am deeply disappointed at the right hon. Gentleman's response. We established all-party agreement on the setting up of the Dealing inquiry, and we set Sir Ron and his committee a difficult task. I have grasped the nettle of picking up on the recommendations in that report, together with our own proposals in "Lifelong Learning", which were put to the electorate on 1 May. Those proposals included changes to the maintenance and grant system.
We have taken Sir Ron's recommendations and built on them, to ensure that no low-income student has to pay fees in higher education; that there will be an additional contribution through a loan of £250; and that we protect those in teaching and health. We have, in essence, taken on board the thrust of the principles that Sir Ron laid out, but built on them to ensure that even more money will be available over the next 20 years.
The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) accuses me of not understanding or not appreciating the needs of low-income families. I do, because I came from one. I know that what is necessary for the future is to be able to offer young men and women the opportunity to go into higher education as we lift standards in schools. If we do not put more money into higher education and if we lift access, and cannot respond to that demand, it is precisely the low-income groups that will be excluded.
I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what I said in my statement. Over the past decade, the participation of those in socio-economic groups D and E, to which he referred, has increased by only half of that of higher-income groups. It was precisely for that reason that Sir Ron recommended increased access. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to come to the House simply to criticise us for what he ridiculously called opportunism, when he has not a single answer to the question of raising the funds that are needed.
We have grasped this difficult nettle, we have taken on the challenge of expansion and of ensuring that young people have opportunities for the future, and yes, we have given a commitment that the resources will go into universities and colleges. I challenge the Opposition to say where they stand, what future this country would have had under their proposals and why they are ducking the opportunity for consensus in going forward on proposals for investment for our country.

Mr. John Gunnell: I am conscious that my right hon. Friend has given a positive statement. Will he particularly consider the position of part-time students who are currently paying fees? As he will know, that group was especially failed by the Conservative party. Will he assure me that, in considering the proposals, he will offer those students a better deal than they would have had if the Conservative party had been responding to the report?

Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is quite right. As part of the review and the White Paper on lifelong learning to which I referred, we shall come back with proposals for helping part-time students.
I say to everyone who criticises what we are doing, "Where were you when 500,000 part-time students had no support at all? Where were you for the 2 million adults in further education who have had to pay fees? Where were you in those inequities and injustices?" I agree with my hon. Friend that we must grasp the issues together.

Mr. Don Foster: We echo the Secretary of State's thanks and congratulations to Sir Ron Dearing and his team, and join the right hon. Gentleman in his belief that there is an urgent need to increase the resources available for higher education, to raise quality, to extend and widen access, and, as he rightly said, to provide more support for part-time students. That is particularly necessary after the 40 per cent, cut in funding per student in higher education in the previous Conservative Government's lifetime. It certainly ill behoves the shadow Secretary of State to talk about "picking a pocket or two". The Conservatives certainly did in relation to higher education.
Is the Secretary of State nevertheless aware that we remain to be convinced of the need to introduce tuition fees for those who currently do not pay them? Although we recognise that there is a need for students to contribute more to higher education, we believe that it can be done by the conversion of the mandatory grant into a means-tested loan. Combined with additional support from employers and the state, that could meet all the Secretary of State's aspirations.
I ask the Secretary of State especially whether he will ensure that every single penny of the money raised, from whatever source, will be redirected into tertiary education and not siphoned off for other Treasury purposes. In his support for part-time students, will he consider making a loan available to them? After the Prime Minister's comments only a few minutes ago, will the Secretary of State ensure that students in Scotland do not suffer unfairly because they are pursuing four-year degrees? Finally, to attempt to reduce the problems of student poverty that are currently leading to one in eight students dropping out of higher education, will he consider extending and increasing the amount of the maintenance loan?
We welcome many of the aspects not only of the Dearing report but of the Secretary of State's statement.

Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I appreciate the way in which he made them. I appreciate also the difficulty that all political parties face in addressing those difficult issues.
The Government are mindful of people on lower incomes, which is why we shall waive tuition fees for them. We are mindful also of the issues that have been raised about part-time students, and, in the autumn, we shall introduce proposals to address those issues. As I said, we appreciate that there are special issues in Scotland. Some students in England and Wales, too, are on courses lasting four years or more. On the issue of funding, I can only reiterate what I have already said twice today: the entire objective in taking our difficult decisions has been to put higher education on a firm footing for the next two decades. We appreciate the way in which the Liberal Democrats are approaching the issue, and we are happy to work together with them.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: How can a Labour Cabinet that includes so many beneficiaries of


Harold Wilson's comprehensive system of university grants even contemplate kicking away the ladder of opportunity from so many present and future students, by depriving them of grants and forcing them to pay tuition fees? Does the absence from the Treasury Bench of any Scottish Office Minister show that, for Scotland, the Government's reactionary proposals will be transferred to a Scottish Parliament—which, I hope, will kick them into the bucket where they belong?

Mr. Blunkett: I understand my hon. Friend's strength of feeling and the nostalgic view of a time when only one in 10—actually one in 20—people went to university. People from the area where I was raised never dreamt of going to university, and if we do not expand higher education, many of them will still not get there.
I do not want tears for the working class, because I am one of them. I want decisions and action to protect the poorest people, so that they will not be denied access and so that they will not have to pay fees. I have already made it clear that availability of hardship loans will be extended. Above all, I want to ensure that we do not wring our hands about the privileged at university, while ignoring those in further education who do not have the benefit of earning, on average, one fifth extra in salary over their lifetime.

Mr. Robert Jackson: I am sorry to dissent from the line being taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), but I congratulate the Government on the statement. Of course, the devil will lie in the detail—which we have yet to see—but I believe that the Government have taken a courageous decision, which should be supported by everyone who has universities' interests at heart. I ask the Secretary of State an important, detailed question: can he give a categorical assurance that the Government will not attempt in any way to limit the existing freedom of our colleges and institutions of higher education to charge tuition fees?

Mr. Blunkett: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for our statement, given his knowledge and background as a former Minister. Given the extent of what we have announced this afternoon and the commitment to investment in the universities, we have to make it clear that we cannot have a freebooting system, in which top-up fees help some at the expense of others. I understand the strong feelings of those in universities who believe that they could raise lots of money independently from the state, but that would be done at the expense of a comprehensive and coherent university system.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Following the previous question, I hope that we intend to stop universities charging top-up tuition fees, and that we shall explore legislation to ensure that that does not happen. Many of the elite institutions are already extraordinarily socially exclusive, and the introduction of further discretionary top-up fees for individual institutions would make that much worse.

Mr. Blunkett: We shall explore whatever is necessary to ensure equity in the system. I say to the university

vice-chancellors who have mooted top-up fees that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot threaten to introduce top-up fees because the Government have not addressed their financial needs, including investment in the future, and then introduce top-up fees when the Government have grasped the nettle.

Mr. John MacGregor: We shall obviously have to see the details of the Dearing report, but does the Secretary of State recognise that his acceptance of at least some of the Dearing proposals on financing shows that we were right in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and that his party's approach, especially on student contributions, was wrong? What will be the public expenditure profile on education for the next five years, as a result of the announcement? Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most important areas of the Dearing report is the maintenance of standards and qualifications as we expand higher education yet further? What does he intend to do about the proposals in that respect?

Mr. Blunkett: I respect the right hon. Gentleman's commitment and knowledge, but the criticisms we made—about the payback period, the lack of a contingent, progressive nature of the loans and the amounts levied on those on relatively low incomes—still stand. The progressive nature of our proposals will ensure that people on less than £20,000 a year will be expected to pay less on average than such people currently pay. I accept that we shall need to spell out in the White Paper the profile of the investment and expansion that will be required in the years ahead. I shall not do that this afternoon, because our proposals need to be integrated with the Dearing proposals. Sir Ron's proposals raise differing sums depending on the income-contingent basis and the starting point for the loans.

Charlotte Atkins: I represent a constituency with many low-income families. How will the Secretary of State's proposals maintain the principle of free education for the poorest students?

Mr. Blunkett: Anyone from a family with an income of less than £35,000 will receive some contribution towards their fees. Anyone from a family with an income of between £16,000 and £23,000, depending on the discounted elements of that income—which at the moment, remarkably, include mortgages but not rents, and child care costs for the better-off but not for the poor, because of the way in which they are applied—will not pay the fee at all. Therefore, they will be protected. What is more, the existing loan, translated into our new contingent loan scheme, will result in lower-income graduates, when they are earning, paying less than they do at the moment.

Mr. Phil Willis: Expanding access and numbers in higher education will be of little value without quality. We welcome in particular Sir Ron's proposal for an institute. What role does the Secretary of State expect the profession to play in that institute? Will it be the commanding role of regulating itself?

Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that. Involving the profession in developing the


role of the institute for learning and teaching will be critical. Many students have said to me that the issue that worries them most is the deterioration in quality—or, in some isolated cases, the lack of commitment—of those who are teaching them. The quality of teaching, as well as maintaining the quality of research, is crucial in higher education. Involving those in the teaching profession and ensuring that they are equipped to do the job will be a great gain for our students of the future.

Mr. Derek Foster: Some in the House will know that I have some respect, and even a little affection, for the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who leads for the Tory party on education. However, he lost the plot this afternoon, as he frequently did during the general election campaign. No one is better placed than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to deal with these extremely difficult problems, and he is tackling them courageously. His struggle for an education, as someone from a poor family, and handicapped person at that, is an inspiration to us. I have total confidence that he will deal with the problem, protect poor families and expand access to higher education.

Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In thanking him for his comments, I say to those on the Government Benches who remain unconvinced, many of whom also experienced further education and evening classes, that when we went to university, we found mainly the privileged there. Regrettably, over the past 40 years, the profile of those going to university has changed by only a fraction. If we commit ourselves to opening up access to those who have been traditionally excluded, we shall achieve a lot more than hand-wringing.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: How can the Secretary of State argue that he is increasing access to higher education by introducing a means test? Will he put a stop to higher tuition fees in Scotland until a Scottish Parliament has had a chance to consider the issue from a Scottish perspective? What guarantees can he give that access to the traditional four-year Scottish honours degree will not be restricted and that the structure will not be destroyed? Why are we not having a Scottish statement, to find out what is happening to our education system?

Mr. Blunkett: As the hon. Gentleman knows, higher education has always been dealt with UK-wide—

Mr. Welsh: No, it has not.

Mr. Blunkett: Under the framework of grants and loans. I have said that special consideration will be given to Scotland, where students taking highers have often done only one year before entering university. That is different from the four-year courses that exist south of the border. That is why we have said that special consideration will have to be given.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I welcome most of the recommendations of the Dearing report and understand the Government's difficulty with the higher education funding mess that was left by the previous Government, but I am still a little sad that it has been deemed necessary to introduce tuition fees. Will my right hon. Friend convince me that the proposals will increase

access to higher education and that students from working-class backgrounds will have a better opportunity of getting into higher education? If he can convince me of that, I shall support him, but if he cannot, I shall not support him.

Mr. Blunkett: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. We have a task together over the years ahead to ensure that we pick up the positive recommendations in the early part of the Dearing committee report, which indicate that we should examine—we shall do so over the summer and autumn, and report back to the House—how we can target resources for institutions that are paying specific attention to groups that have been excluded, including those in geographic areas that are massively under-represented. We must also look at the necessary action to be taken within schools and colleges to raise the expectations of those young people and their families.
I want to make it clear that this is not solely about what is now a minority of students who enter higher education at 18 or 19; it is also about encouraging mature students to come back into lifelong learning. We must pay attention to that, if we are not to write off generations that lost the opportunity which we were glad to accept.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Leaving aside the Secretary of State's carefully crafted efforts to conceal the fact that there are now record numbers of students with a better socio-economic participation than ever before, does he agree that the essential issue is the cash that is available for the higher education sector? Given that he has announced what amounts to a deferred student windfall tax, will he give an undertaking to the House that the resources will be fully recycled into the higher education sector?

Mr. Blunkett: I have given a clear indication this afternoon of the investment in universities and colleges, and the whole purpose of the exercise upon which we are embarking has been to achieve that goal. I want to make it clear that we are not charging students at the time they are students. We are relating what they have to pay to their ability to pay at a point in the future when they have become better off because of the higher education that they have received. Until hon. Members and those outside the House are able to understand that essential point, they will continue to stand on picket lines, mouthing platitudes with the Socialist Workers party.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Despite the welcome proposals for alleviating poverty among students from low-income families, does my right hon. Friend accept that some students might be reluctant to take on such a high burden of debt so early in their lives? Has he given any consideration to how the proposals might alter the patterns of demand for higher education, with more students choosing to live at home, more choosing to take advantage of the more generous option for part-time courses than has been available previously and more choosing distance learning—studying from their own homes?

Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend has raised a number of interesting issues, not least that of distance learning, which is a good, not a bad thing. It will be part of aiming learning at the individual rather than at institutions. I think


that it will increase participation and help to gain agreement and commitment to education from a much broader spectrum of the population. If it encourages people to earn and to learn part time, it will be welcome, so long as we do not end up with a few extremely affluent and high-status institutions taking students of a different type from the rest of the university sector. I hope that we can avoid that by linking universities together, as Dealing recommends, so that they can co-operate and collaborate rather than compete with each other.

Mr. Eric Forth: I welcome the general thrust of the Dearing report and much of what the Secretary of State said. Will he pause and reflect on two things of great importance? May I ask him not necessarily to accept the shibboleth that the more people who go into something called higher education, the better, but to consider whether a university degree is necessarily something that a third of the population or even more can get and that sub-degree qualifications may be more relevant to the idea of lifetime learning and the needs of business? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman also to pause and think further about liberating the institutions and enabling them to consider what fees, whether higher or lower, they wish to charge, in order to provide students with a range of options as to the financial commitment that they might wish to undertake? That would increase student and consumer choice and keep the institutions much more on their toes.

Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the opening remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, as someone who served in the Department for Education and Employment. I cannot agree with his last remarks about universities doing their own thing, for the very reasons that I spelt out earlier. I make it clear that I am not in favour of an ivy league— I want universities to co-operate. I want access to be available for all students—whatever their background, income or geography—to all institutions without a top-up fee. I believe that we can achieve that. We can achieve it on the back of the decisions that we are taking, so that we can raise and invest the money necessary to make it possible.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: As someone who taught for a number of years in the Open university, I am sure that students there and elsewhere will be reassured by my right hon. Friend's emphasis on that sector. We shall look for further details in due course. May I ask specifically what consideration he has given and what proposals he currently has to give extra help to those who are already facing hardship within the maintenance system?

Mr. Blunkett: Sir Ron raises the issue of how we might extend the available hardship payments. I am very sympathetic to looking at the transition between the present system—the mish-mash that currently exists—and the new system as we introduce it. It would be fair to do that.

Mr. Roy Beggs: While I believe that access to loan funds is no substitute for grants to students, I nevertheless welcome the Secretary of State"s of State"s statement

that there will be a concentration of public funds to the benefit of students from poorer families. I also welcome the attention paid to the needs of Northern Ireland. However, will the Secretary of State seek to ensure that sufficient additional funding is made available, so that all the students in Northern Ireland who gain entry qualifications to higher education in England, Scotland and Wales will have opportunities that are at least equal to those enjoyed by the 2,500 students from the Republic of Ireland who obtain places in Northern Ireland, whose tuition is paid for by the British taxpayer? Will he look at that matter further? I was a bit surprised that Sir Ron Dearing and his committee did not address that burden on British taxpayers, whereby tuition fees are paid, for students from other EC countries.

Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am aware of the different circumstances in Northern Ireland, including the higher take-up rate of higher education in working-class communities and the need to be able to sustain that. The proposals that we lay out will apply to all European Union citizens, and one of the ironies may well be a cross-border flow into the Republic, rather than the other way round, on a temporary basis. However, I understand that the students unions in the Republic are not happy with the system that was introduced two or three years ago, on the ground that we are advocating this afternoon—that it is not raising the status, standing and quality of teaching in the Republic. We might, therefore, be able to resolve the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman in a positive fashion.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the whole of the Dearing team, including the Policy Studies Institute and others, who have produced the report, although I have not had the benefit of reading it. My right hon. Friend has said that we have grasped the nettle. That nettle was too difficult for the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) to grasp. How do we fund higher education for a new swathe of young people in our country? Every piece of research that I have read shows that the money has to come from the beneficiary: the taxpayer cannot and will not pay it, but the beneficiary should pay it, because he or she gets an education that fits him or her for life. That is one of Dearing's central principles, and it is a good one.
Dearing is also concerned with quality, which is most important. So, too, is accessibility. We need to change the culture in many of our schools. Many children do not see higher education as even a remote possibility—

Madam Speaker: Order. It is about time I heard a question to which the Secretary of State can respond.

Mr. Sheerman: I was just coming to one, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already done rather well, and time is pressing. Secretary of State.

Mr. Blunkett: I agree with my hon. Friend's last point, which I shall treat as a question. In my hon. Friend's own area, the West Riding, Alec Clegg got more students from


the schools into university during the 1960s and 1970s than manage to get there today. Given the expansion in higher education since then, that is a disgrace.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman may wish to know that the former Government did not introduce 100 per cent, loans because Back Benchers refused to accept that that was achievable—politics is the art of the possible. Will he confirm that a student today can take out a loan of £1,500 a year during a four-year degree course, and will have to pay back £6,000; whereas under his proposals, for a maximum loan of £4,500 over a four-year period, that student would have to pay back £18,000?

Mr. Blunkett: No, we should compare like with like. The figure is £10,500, on the exemplifications that we have at the moment—with that codicil added because the trigger amounts make a difference to the repayment amounts and hence to the long-term debt.

Mr. John Cryer: I fail to see how these measures will widen participation in higher education, mainly because they mean an end to free universal higher education—an idea for which the Labour party and the Labour movement fought for decades. The proposals mean young people taking on large debts early in their lives.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposals will lead to a division between universities and colleges? Some will offer bargain-basement courses to poorer students, while the better-off universities such as Cambridge, Durham and Oxford will charge high fees.

Mr. Blunkett: It is precisely to avoid that problem that we are bringing in this system instead of top-up fees, which universities claim they have the freedom to introduce willy-nilly under current law. So the truth is the very opposite of what my hon. Friend fears. The idea that graduates, who earn at least 20 per cent, more than their counterparts who are non-graduates, are poor does not hold water. We should save our tears for those who, for donkeys' years, got up at 5 o'clock in the morning to do cleaning jobs so as to pay the taxation that allowed some of us to do very well indeed.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Sir Ron Dearing's report seems almost as radical as many of us had hoped. The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on grasping some of its radical aspects, including the deferred contribution of students to tuition fees.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a little more information on other crucial aspects of the report, such as research expenditure and contributions to infrastructure expenditure? Does he agree that universities are and should be available to all, but that it is equally important to establish internationally recognised scholarship and research? Does he agree that certain universities

and departments will have to make a great deal of effort and will require extra resources if they are to stand up to international competition?

Mr. Blunkett: I am tempted to just say yes, because I agree with that point entirely. There is certainly a crisis in terms of equipment and the capacity to undertake research, and in terms of the buildings themselves. Sir Ron recognises that. We intend to deal with it in the White Paper on lifelong learning. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments; I sincerely hope that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Charnwood, will acknowledge the genuine feelings and commitment of his own Back Benchers.

Lorna Fitzsimons: It is important for us to clarify several points. First, does my right hon. Friend agree that the current system is one of the most inequitable that we have, which is why the high-street banks refused to administer it when the previous Government tried to negotiate for them to do so? Secondly, will he make it clear that we do not have free universal higher education, as some people in the House and outside the House would have us believe, because Open university students, part-time students and further education students have always paid fees? Thirdly, will he tell the House that the crucial part of Dealing is, as I understand it, building a much needed bridge over the gap between further education and higher education, to give meaning to the principles that we have enshrined, on quality, access and fairness?

Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. We have tried to make it clear that there has been a misunderstanding, in that some people have taken young, full-time students entering at the age of 18 and 19 to be the norm. Now, more than 50 per cent. of students are mature and a third of students—half a million—are part time. Adult further education students not below the age of 19—there are 2 million of them—have had to pay. To put it in context, I believe that this is the final break with the welfare state that invested in the better-off at the expense of the worse-off.

Mr. Dorrell: This afternoon, several hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked the Secretary of State a question, the answer to which would be of real interest to everyone looking at this subject from outside, but which he has not yet given. How much money does he expect the tuition fees that he proposes to raise, and how much of that will find its way directly to universities?

Mr. Blunkett: By 2002, £650 million on the present accounting basis; £1,700,000 on resource accounting, which is being examined by the Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: We now move on. I know that I have a point of order from Mr. Gorrie.

Points of Order

Mr. Donald Gorrie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My concern is that I discovered that the Scottish press had been enabled to get hold of copies of the Dearing report at 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon. The report was embargoed until this afternoon. I have no doubt that equal opportunities were given to the London and English press. I do not object to members of the press having an advance copy so that they can write a sensible article about it; I am suggesting that Members of Parliament are equally trustworthy and that we could get embargoed copies, so that we could make intelligent comments and so that when, for example, I am asked to speak—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Gorrie: In my case, the Scottish media are interested in a Scottish reaction to the Dearing report. They had copies of it and I did not, which seems to be unreasonable. I suggest that, in future, Members of Parliament should be regarded as being as trustworthy as journalists and should be given embargoed copies of such documents.

Madam Speaker: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. It is intolerable when a Member of the House is asked questions by a journalist about the contents of a Government document that has been made available to that journalist on an embargoed basis and is not available to the Member.
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, who is new to the House, that it has been a long-standing and accepted practice that advance copies of Government documents are issued to the press on an embargoed basis, as he says himself, in order to assist them in their subsequent reporting. The terms of the embargo do not permit the press to make other use of the document in advance of its availability to the House.
It seems to me from what the hon. Gentleman has said that in this case, the terms of the embargo have not been respected. That will no doubt be as much a matter of concern to the Secretary of State as it is to me. Ministers are being let down by the press when they do not respect an embargo. It happened with the previous Government; it is now happening with this Government. The Secretary of State will no doubt wish to consider the implications of this incident for the practice of advance release on an embargoed basis. In any event, he might consider what action should be taken in respect of the journalist concerned.

Mr. Tarn Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you intend to bring your statement to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland? Tomorrow's publication of the devolution White Paper could be the litmus test of what you have said to the House.

Madam Speaker: I hope that those on the Government Front Bench, whose job it is to bring my remarks to the attention of Secretaries of State, will do precisely that.

Mr. Tony Benn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. First, may I welcome the strong

line that you are taking in protecting the House from Government statements being leaked before they reach the public domain? The point that I wish to raise, of which I gave you notice but to which I do not expect an answer today, relates to the same matter.
Yesterday, the No. 10 press office gave a full briefing that a new Cabinet consultative Committee was to be set up, that Opposition Members were to be on it, and that they would be subject to the Official Secrets Act. No statement was even due to be made today on the matter. Whether the idea is good or bad is a matter for the parties concerned, but it greatly affects the position of the House of Commons, where there are really only two categories of Member: Ministers who represent the Government; and Members of the House who are members of the legislature. If the Government can co-opt members of the legislature and give them private information on a wide range of issues, are they any longer an Opposition able to enjoy the rights of opposition? That is the point that I want to make. I am not talking about the merits of the matter, but simply saying that we now have a semi-move towards a coalition, even though we are told by the No. 10 spokesman that this does not involve collective Cabinet responsibility for Liberal Democrat Members who are invited to serve on the Committee.
This point may seem remote, but I do not believe that it is. First, I believe that it is of great importance that statements of that kind should be made to the House. As you will have heard when I asked the Prime Minister this question earlier, I looked up the precedents and found that, when Liberals were brought in before, the Prime Minister of the day made a statement in the House. I cited the two cases of which I knew. Secondly, in what way can you take account of the fact that the Liberal Democrat spokesman may well be asking questions with knowledge not open to others, but which he cannot disclose to the House or even to his own colleagues, because he has acquired that knowledge through contact with the Government of the day?
I do not expect you to respond, Madam Speaker, but this is another issue on which a vigorous defence of the House against the Executive, the press and everybody else is required.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My point of order, of which I have given you notice, Madam Speaker, is similar to that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Clearly, the decision to include Liberal Democrats on a Cabinet consultative Committee means, in effect, that Liberal Democrats are moving from the Opposition Benches to the Government Benches. That has an important impact on the role and status of Liberal Democrats in this House. For example, when they seek to catch your eye, should not they be treated as Government Back Benchers, and when they seek places on Committees of this House, should not they be treated as sitting on the Government Benches?
The matter goes further. Who represents the minority parties? Surely not the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who is in effect on the Government Benches. Indeed, it goes even further than that. For example, there are the questions of Short money and of party political broadcasts. That is a matter on which you, Madam Speaker, might wish to summon a Speaker's


committee so as to ensure that allocation to Liberal Democrats came out of the allocation that would otherwise go to the Labour party.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am happy to listen to points of order. One day we might have a debate on these matters.

Mr. Forth: I welcome your advice, Madam Speaker. Following the point of order of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), may I ask whether you were consulted before this rather unusual and, as far as I know, unprecedented step was taken? Was your advice sought with regard to the implications for the House of what is apparently being done in terms of the status of Members of Parliament and political parties in the House? If not, certain rather arrogant presumptions seem to have been made by both the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, taking the rest of us—perhaps including you, Madam Speaker—entirely for granted.

Madam Speaker: There is no need for any Government to consult me on such a matter. The relationship between the Government and another political party is not a matter for me, nor do I think that it is a matter that requires a statement to the House. However, I have noted the points of order raised by hon. Gentlemen, as no doubt have Ministers. Perhaps at business questions tomorrow, other hon. Members may seek to catch my eye, so that they may put questions to the President of the Council.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to the point of order of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), Madam Speaker, of course there is an issue as to access to Government facilities. If the matter is to be debated or listed for the public and the House, I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will ensure that all the facilities to which the official Opposition have access—cars for the leader, civil servants in the Whips Office and additional resources—are listed. We are happy for resources available to Opposition parties to be listed.
The two points that must be recorded clearly are, first, that I have not said anything to suggest that a constructive dialogue with the Government is not available to all parties, if they ask for it and if they are willing to come to an agreement about it. Secondly, for all the years that I have been in the House and longer, facilities have been

afforded in different ways by different Governments to Opposition parties and funded by the state. We would rather have access to information than access to goodies.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Further to the point of order relating to the statement, given that the Dearing committee set up a special sub-committee to examine the position in Scotland, given that there were only two lines relating to Scotland in the ministerial statement, and given that the grant system in Scotland has always been in the purview of the Scottish Office, rather than of the Department for Education and Employment, may I ask whether the Secretary of State for Scotland has applied to make a statement on the Dearing report?

Madam Speaker: The simple answer is no.

Mr. John MacGregor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just been to the Vote Office to get a copy of the Dearing report, and I am told that only a 54-page summary will be available to hon. Members from the Vote Office. It is a pretty skimpy summary. Those of us who want to study the full report during the recess expect to be in our constituencies, not in London. I was told that the only way of seeing the full report was to go to the Library. I hope that I have been misinformed, but if that is correct, I hope that you will make it clear that the Dearing report will be available through the Vote Office to hon. Members in the usual way.

Madam Speaker: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is correct. I know that up to 1 o'clock today 250 copies of the summary were available in the Vote Office, but I would expect the full report now to be available. I will see to it when I leave the Chair, when I am allowed to. It is right that the full report should be available to hon. Members.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm, on the basis of reports that you have seen, probably in the media, that the debate going on about the position of the Liberal Democrats is being wildly exaggerated? They will not form part of the Executive. They are simply being drawn into a forum where they are being consulted. As a Member, I cannot see what is difficult about that proposition.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me, and I am a wise enough Speaker never to make comment about media comments.

Access to the Countryside

Mr. Paddy Tipping: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law on trespass and to enable members of the public to resort on foot to open country in England and Wales for their recreation; and for connected purposes.
Fifty years ago this week the post-war Labour Government received the Hobhouse report. The majority of its recommendations were agreed. As a result, we now have national parks, the Countryside Commission, long-distance footpaths and a right of way network recorded on the definitive map. Unfortunately, the fifth, important recommendation—a right to roam over open country—was dropped because of obstacles placed in its path, and lack of parliamentary time.
The right to roam in the wild places has been called for in Parliament for more than a century. The Liberal Member of Parliament James Bryce introduced the first access Bill in 1884. Unfortunately, that Bill and many of its successors were blocked or emasculated by landowning interests in Parliament.
Despite that, the demand and need to protect and extend the public's freedom to wander on foot over uncultivated land is greater than ever. We now have another radical, reforming Labour Government, whose achievements I believe will match those of the 1945 Government. There are high expectations that this Government will deliver greater access to the countryside. Labour's manifesto at the general election promised greater access to mountain, moorland and common land. However, those rights to roam were coupled with responsibilities for the walker.
This Bill provides a framework for what I think can be achieved. I do not see it as the definitive article, but as a vehicle for debate and discussion. There are many voices in the country and many demands on the countryside. We must seek to balance them, although it will be difficult to find the right balance. We must remember that the countryside changes, and, as it changes, attempts must be made to lift the landscape and enhance the environment. The countryside will never be a museum.
The Bill seeks to build on previous similar measures that I have introduced. I thank the Ramblers Association—particularly Jerry Pearlman, its honorary solicitor—for its help and support. I put on record the fact that I am an enthusiastic walker and vice-president of the Ramblers Association. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge that the focus of the Bill has been narrowed to bring it into line with what I believe to be Labour party policy.
The Bill confers the right to roam on mountain, moorland, common land, heath and down. However, it is not an unrestricted right to roam: exclusions are granted to take account of shooting and conservation interests. There are many stakeholders in the countryside, and I have consulted fully about the Bill. Meetings have taken place with the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union. All agree that there is a need for greater access, but there are different views about how to achieve that aim.
As a result of those discussions, positive obligations are imposed in schedule 1 on persons who want to walk the open spaces. Rights are clearly linked to responsibilities:

freedom to walk places a responsibility on the walker to respect the countryside. In addition, the rights of those who wish to shoot are safeguarded and strengthened. Dogs must now always be kept on a lead. Most importantly, a new clause has been added to assuage the fears of the Country Landowners Association and others that they could face insurance claims from walkers. Clause 10 makes it clear that landowners have no responsibilities in that regard. Another burden has been lifted from landowners.
I hope that I have made it clear that I have responded positively to countryside concerns. There can be no justification for any claim that the measures would be imposed on the countryside without discussion. The Bill has its opponents, but they should accept it at face value and in good faith. To characterise it as somehow allowing unrestricted access to the countryside reveals prejudice and vested interest. The Bill attempts to address all countryside interests without causing substantial harm to any.
I say bluntly to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation that, before writing to all Members of Parliament expressing concern about the Bill, it would have been wise to read it. Its ill-informed criticism does it no favours. Many issues it raises have already been addressed.
I understand the Country Landowners Association's view that access should be voluntary and managed. Nevertheless, 50 years ago, the Hobhouse report and the subsequent National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 provided a framework for negotiating voluntary access. Unfortunately, progress has been painful and pitiful. For instance, large parts of the Peak district and the Forest of Bowland remain out of bounds. The CLA has received money from the Countryside Commission to help with voluntary access work. It will be judged on what it can achieve. Unless progress is made, legislation is inevitable.
Judgments will also be made on assessments of the costs of access to the country. I seek to persuade the Minister that the costs are minimal and can be met from existing budgets.
I contrast my approach with the work of the Country Landowners Association, which commissioned a report that purports to show that the provisions in the Bill will cost landowners £2 billion. I challenge the CLA to publish this secret report, so that its methodology can be scrutinised. I am inclined to say at this stage that this is yet another example of scaremongering.
To put the £2 billion into context, I calculate that it could purchase 10 million acres of mountain and moorland at an average cost of £200 per acre. The Minister and the House need to be reminded that there are only 12 million acres in total of mountain and moorland in England and Wales. The CLA's claims are therefore clearly exaggerated.
It seems to me that the Ramblers Association and others promoting greater access have made proposals that are practical, reasonable and follow English legal precedent. Moreover, they have shown their willingness to compromise.
The Bill is practical in the sense that it provides draft legislation that can be implemented on the ground. All that is required is parliamentary time. The Bill is


reasonable in that it is not a Utopian demand for everything that the access lobby would wish for. Difficult decisions have already been made.
I am conscious that I have spent time talking about the restrictions and exemptions of the Bill. I have described the compromises that have already been made. I am keen to stress the need for further dialogue and consultation. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has confirmed that he will carry out his own consultation exercise later this year, with a view to introducing legislation.
I am confident that my Bill will provide a foundation stone on which future legislation can be built. It is a measure whose time has now come. It is a Bill that looks to the future, not the past. It is a Bill that provides access for the many, not just the few. I believe that, by the millennium, we will at last truly be able to say for the first time, "This land is our land."

Mr. Tom King: I rise to oppose the Bill, but not because I wish in any sense to oppose access to the countryside. Everybody who lives in towns and in the country knows the value of our wonderful countryside, and all hon. Members should share the determination that people should have the maximum possible access to it.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his persistence. He has been here before, and I have read the speech that he made on 30 January 1996, in which he sought to bring in a very similar Bill.
I do not quite understand why we are here today, because I heard the Under—Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), say last week in the House that the Government would introduce legislation on this subject and would conduct a wide-ranging consultation exercise later in the year. Without anticipating whether legislation will prove to be necessary, I am sure that this is an issue on which the widest consultation arises.
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely frank with the House when he said that he was vice-president of the Ramblers Association. He said that the Bill has the support of ramblers. I shall seek to persuade the House that a vastly wider range of interests has to be accommodated in such a complex measure.
I challenge the House to recognise its responsibility. It has the power to legislate on virtually anything, but before it embarks on a particular course, it has a heavy responsibility to decide whether that is the right route to take to achieve the objectives that many right hon. and hon. Members may wish to achieve. The hon. Gentleman says that there is a balance of interests to be determined, that there must be full consultation, and that he does not wish to predetermine any issue, but his Bill predetermines the key issue: that we will now abandon the voluntary principle, and move to the world of prohibition, of enforcement.
We have an advantage that I do not think we had on 30 January 1996. I have a copy of the previous Bill. I do not know how many hon. Members have had a chance to read the earlier Bill, but those who have will have found that the enthusiasm they may feel is much greater when they stick to its broad principle, and rapidly declines when they examine the complex details.
Schedule 1—which may be altered in the new Bill—lists the people who will not be allowed the right to roam. It refers to a person who

"(a) drives or rides any vehicle;
(b) lights any fire or does any act which is likely to cause a fire;
(c) takes, or allows to enter or remain, any dog not under proper control;
(d) wilfully kills, takes, molests or disturbs any animal, bird or fish or takes or injures any eggs or nests;
(e) bathes in any non-tidal water in contravention of a notice …
(f) engages in any operations … connected with hunting, shooting, fishing … taking or destroying of animals …
(g) wilfully damages the land …
(h) wilfully injures, removes … any plant, shrub, tree …
(i) obstructs the flow of any drain or watercourse …
(j) affixes … any advertisement, bill, placard …
(k) deposits any rubbish or leaves any litter;
(l) engages in riotous, disorderly or indecent conduct;
(m) wantonly disturbs, annoys or obstructs any person engaged in any lawful occupation".

I like (n), which refers to a person who
holds any political meeting or delivers any political address".
That will have brought home to hon. Members what we did not know when the Bill was first introduced. It demonstrates the complexities involved.
The hon. Gentleman said that the measures in his Bill would not be imposed without consultation; they would be imposed after consultation. That is what he proposes, and what he hopes will happen. However, given the complexity of the issues, I believe that we abandon the voluntary principle at our peril.
I hold no brief for anyone, although I have seen the brief from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and I know that the Country Landowners Association has advocated the voluntary approach. Perhaps I approach the issue as the then Minister who introduced the Bill that became the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and carried it through to enactment.
I also represent a rural constituency, and I see the pressures on the countryside. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to recognise that the issue does not affect only ramblers. It is not just a question of ramblers against landowners; a host of interests are involved. Certainly ramblers and all walkers are affected, but we must also consider mountain bikers, and the awful "mystery tours" by four-by-four clubs that turn up in the countryside and show no interest in discovering where there is a legitimate right of way.
Then there are horse riders—in my constituency, in the Quantocks, there are even camel riders—bird watchers, naturalists and fishermen. We must also bear in mind the interests of conservation. Pressure is put on the countryside by balloonists, hang gliders and scramble motor cyclists. Many of those involved are competing with each other.
I see this Bill as the first of a row of such Bills. Hon. Members may know about the issuing of temporary prohibition orders. Every three years, under the Bill, every ancient monument that English Heritage wants to protect from those who demand a right of access must be given a temporary prohibition order. The same applies to landscapes and areas that are important to conservation—


sites of special scientific interest, I suppose. It is a continual process. That is what hon. Members are going to support today.
Opposing the earlier Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) described it as a legislative dinosaur, and I agree. It provides unlimited scope for disputes, and I think that it could cause great damage. I accept that the voluntary principle needs improvement, but I will fight hard to keep it. I want to warn hon. Members of the dangers before they rush instinctively into what they think must be sensible measures.
Who looks after the countryside? Who are its stewards? Farmers, foresters and those with sporting and conservation interests, along with organisations such as the Woodland Trust, are trying to preserve a countryside in which people can enjoy walking and rambling. I would never defend those landlords who have a fortress mentality, but nor would I support a militant and aggressive assertion of rights, which could cause great trouble.
The House has the power to legislate on anything. It has a reputation not for legislating too little, but for legislating and then having to legislate again and again. My plea to hon. Members is that, before going down the route that the hon. Gentleman invites us to follow, they consider carefully whether the voluntary principle could be made to work, so that a balance can be struck between the different interests without creating a bureaucracy. Local government would have to enforce this legislation, which would introduce two new criminal offences. Access to our countryside should be agreeable and achievable. I beg the House to be fully conscious of those arguments, and not to support the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paddy Tipping, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Helen Jackson, Ms Sally Keeble, Ms Jackie Lawrence, Ms Chris McCafferty, Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mr. Chris Pond, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Chris Ruane, Mr. Stephen Timms and Ms Joan Walley.

ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE

Mr. Paddy Tipping accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law on trespass and to enable members of the public to resort on foot to open country in England and Wales for their recreation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 February, and to be printed [Bill 54].

Convergence Programmes (European Union)

The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): I beg to move,
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
The debate arises from an amendment to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 proposed by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights. The purpose of the amendment was to signal the importance attached by the Labour party to the objectives contained in article 2 of the Maastricht treaty, which include the balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth, respecting the environment, a high level of employment, and economic and social cohesion.
The amendment to section 5 of the 1993 Act requires Parliament to approve a Government report. That report should set out how the Government's economic and budgetary position relates to public investment and to the goals of article 2. Parliament must approve that report before information may be submitted to the Commission or Council for the purposes of articles 103 and 104c of the Maastricht treaty, which relate to the broad economic guidelines and excessive deficit procedure respectively.
The "Financial Statement and Budget Report" published earlier this month provides an appropriate assessment. It clearly sets out how the Government intend to meet the social, economic and environmental objectives mentioned in article 2 of the Maastricht treaty. It also sets out the Government's position on public investment.
In the Budget, the Chancellor announced how the Government would begin equipping Britain for its long-term future. The Government's policy will promote economic stability, encourage long-term investment, modernise the welfare state to encourage work and not dependency, provide high-quality public services, move towards a fairer tax system, and protect the environment and health.
In the past, Britain has suffered repeated cycles of boom and bust, which have damaged long-term investment and growth. The Government are putting economic management on a more stable, longer-term footing. A five-year deficit reduction plan will ensure that the Government borrow only to finance investment. That should reverse the steady increase in the burden of public debt in recent years.
The Bank of England has been given responsibility for setting interest rates to meet the Government's inflation target, which should mean that interest rates will be lower in the long run.
Britain has a legacy of under-investment in new technologies, infrastructure and skills. Investment in relation to gross domestic product is low by both historical and international standards. That has contributed to capacity constraints, and has held back economic growth. The Budget encourages long-term investment by putting economic management on to a more stable footing, reforming corporation tax and reinvigorating the private finance initiative.
In Britain today, one in five working-age households have no one earning a wage. In order to replace welfare with work, the Budget introduces new deals for the young, the long-term unemployed, lone parents and schools. The Government have also launched a review of the tax and benefits system to consider how to streamline and modernise the welfare state to help employment opportunity and work incentives.
Protecting the environment is at the heart of the Government's objectives for the tax system. Economic development needs to take place in a way consistent with high standards of environmental protection. The Government are committed to broadening the scope for using the tax system to deliver environmental objectives by increasing the incentives to reduce environmental damage.
The Government are also committed to delivering high-quality public services within tight overall spending controls. Spending should be targeted in priority areas, and public resources should be spent efficiently. Within an unchanged control total, the Chancellor has announced an extra £1.2 billion for the national health service and an extra £1 billion for schools. A comprehensive spending review is also under way. It will examine every item of spending, and ensure that it contributes as effectively and efficiently as possible.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Paymaster General is probably the best person to ask for an authoritative answer. He gave the figures for extra money for health and for schools. Will he confirm that it is a straightforward cash increase, which does not take into account inflation? I am not arguing that it should, but we should understand that it is a total before inflation, not an inflation-adjusted figure.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman will remember that that question was asked during Prime Minister's questions two weeks ago, and was adequately answered on that occasion.
The private finance initiative also has a key role to play. It has always been a good idea, but reforms are needed to make it work better. Obstacles in the way of projects coming to fruition must be removed, priority should be identified, and the process should be streamlined. The Government have already taken action to improve the PFI and to ensure that more contracts are signed more quickly across the public sector.
The House will have noted the appointment of Mr. Adrian Montague as chairman of the task force on the PFI. I am pleased to say that the appointment has received an extremely warm welcome in the private sector. I am sure that he will provide great impetus to the programme.
Sending information from the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" to the Commission and Council will enable Britain to share information with our European allies. In turn, that will enable Britain to take a lead in Europe to help to tackle the underlying weaknesses of European economies with a programme of economic reform.
British interests are best served by being strong in Europe. In order to shape an agenda that is right for Britain and Europe, we need to be in, and leading in, Europe. We want to make Europe more open, more

competitive, more flexible and more adaptable. We want Europe to set goals on higher productivity, employment and growth. We need to ensure that Europe develops in ways that will promote growth and jobs in both Europe and Britain. That is why Britain must be in Europe and leading.
Participating in multilateral surveillance is a helpful step towards achieving that end. Sharing information helps to promote the adoption of sound policies, and forms the basis of a more positive and constructive approach. The Government have already adopted that approach to tackle European unemployment.
Under my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's initiative "Getting Europe to Work", member states and the ECOFIN Council will focus on cutting unemployment by identifying best practice in each member state. By playing a proactive role, Britain is leading the debate on how best to combat high and unacceptable levels of unemployment in Europe.
None of the challenges currently facing Europe will influence its development as much as the single currency. A single European currency could bring benefits, but would work only with real convergence among the economies taking part. Any decision about British membership will be made in the British interest and to meet British needs, after a cool, hard-headed assessment of the national interest. To make the right decision, we need an open and intelligent debate on a single currency.
That is why, last week, the Chancellor threw open the debate about European monetary union, and why multilateral surveillance at European level is also a good idea. Without that, we would be in no position to make the right decision, and any debate would be ill informed.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Minister confirm that, in the Chancellor's consideration of what is in the British interest, he will take into account not only economic interests, but the constitutional price to pay for a single currency? How will he balance the constitutional price with the economic pluses and minuses when his work is done?

Mr. Robinson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take all relevant considerations into account, and, in his great wisdom, come to a balanced judgment about them that will indeed be in Britain's national interest.
Approving the motion allows the United Kingdom to participate in such multilateral surveillance, as provided for in articles 103 and 104c of the Maastricht treaty. Under article 103, member states submit convergence programmes that set out their economic objectives and provide information on their economic performance. Sharing such information facilitates the identification and promotion of successful economic policies. Under the article, the Council also draws up broad economic policy guidelines. Those provide an overview of economic developments in the European Union, and lead to an agreed broad set of policy guidelines.
Under article 104c, member states provide information on the state of their public finances under the excessive deficit procedure. All European countries should pursue policies for low inflation and sound public finances. Those are the essential building blocks for investment, growth and jobs. That is why the Maastricht criteria are important.
Multilateral surveillance is a sensible precursor to enable Britain to take a proper role in Europe and to make the right decisions about Europe. Approving the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" under section 5 will enable the UK to participate in such surveillance.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I thank all my colleagues for coming to the Chamber to listen to me this afternoon—[Laughter.] I think that a slightly more important attraction is taking place elsewhere.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the assessment of Britain's economic and Budget provisions. It gives the House a chance to look back with pride on the economic conditions created under the previous Conservative Government, which we can report with satisfaction to the European Commission at Brussels and to the wider world; but we must also look with growing concerning at the Budget provisions that require to be reported.
At the centre of this debate should be the vital matter of our contribution to the EU budget. We now learn that that may rise by a significant amount—possibly, according to some sources, by as much as £2 billion. I intend to deal with all three items in my brief remarks, probing the Paymaster General a little on the EU contribution.
Every day produces more evidence of the great strength of the British economy that the Labour Government have inherited. Our public finances are in first-class order. A few simple facts illustrate the point. We have had the longest period of low inflation for 50 years. Unemployment is falling steadily, while it is rising in France and Germany. In Britain, it stands at 7.4 per cent., compared with a European average of 10.8 per cent.
We have the fastest growth of any major EU economy. Tax revenues are flooding in so strongly that we are comfortably on course to meet the Maastricht criteria on debt and deficits. Britain's public sector borrowing requirement is set to be just 1.75 per cent, of gross domestic product this year, but in France the Government talk about massive tax increases in an attempt to creep below the 3 per cent. target—almost certainly in an artificial and unsustainable manner.
When the International Monetary Fund's annual report on the United Kingdom praised Britain's impressive macro-economic performance, strong growth, declining unemployment and low inflation, as the Chancellor was so keen to point out, I wonder whether he stopped for just one moment to ask himself who had been working for years to put those achievements in place. I wonder whether he stopped for a moment longer to consider who had been criticising the very policies that delivered the economic success that the IMF is so keen to praise.
Our economy is the envy of Europe. That is our Conservative legacy. All across Europe, other Governments are adopting our language of flexible labour markets and free trade, the winning of inward investment and the encouragement of enterprise. We have won the arguments, and now, throughout Europe, we must ensure that policies adopted by member states reflect that new language.
Specific policies create flexible labour markets and economic success—not just the ability to parrot the right phrases. The Paymaster General again fell into the trap of

tripping out the phrases with no real sense that he understood the specific policies that are required to bring about economic success, which brings me neatly to my second point.
We have to report to Brussels our Budget proposals for the coming financial period. What a contrast with that which has gone before. I am not sure what the French is for "a botched Budget", but I suggest that the Paymaster General finds out pretty fast, because he will be hearing much about it in Europe over the next 12 months.
Labour's response to such an impressive economic legacy is to botch its first Budget. The Chancellor talked up the existence of a consumer boom, and then piled £5 billion of his £6 billion extra taxes on the corporate sector. Having identified a problem, he took no action to deal with it. Lacking the courage of our convictions, he gave a hospital pass to the Bank of England, which then had little option but to step in and raise interest rates—three times since 1 May. It is obvious to all that there are plenty more where that came from. Home owners and businesses throughout the country are already, after just a few weeks, beginning to pay for Labour's mistakes.
On top of that, the Budget trumpeted the signing of the social chapter, guaranteeing job losses here in the UK, and paved the way for a national minimum wage, guaranteeing job losses here in the UK. This Government use the language of flexible labour markets, but introduce financial policies and new burdens on businesses that will have precisely the opposite effect. For a while, the Government can live in the warm glow of their soundbite honeymoon, but in the morning, when the cold light of day exposes their decisions rather than their diction, the country's thoughts will quickly turn to divorce. That brings me, in my full flow of eloquence, to my third and final point.
How can the Paymaster General come to the House today and say nothing about the apparent increase in the UK contribution to the European Union? Not a word did he mention. Why did not the Chancellor in his Budget find the time to mention the huge increase? According to some newspaper reports, it is as high as £2 billion. The Sunday Times, which we know is always accurate, reported on 20 July:
Britain's taxpayers will have to pay an extra £2 billion into the coffers of the European Union next year, as much as the additional spending Gordon Brown allocated to health and education in his July 2 budget.
The surprise 27% increase, taking Britain's gross contribution from £6.3 billion to £8.3 billion, is revealed in unpublished documents sent by the Treasury to the House of Commons committee that monitors the EU.
In an accompanying letter, Helen Liddell, the Treasury economic secretary, says the increase in contributions—which lifts Britain's share of the £59 billion budget of the 15-member EU from 11% to 14%—is explained by Britain's better economic performance relative to the rest of Europe, a £200m reduction in the amount of Britain's budget abatement, and an increase of nearly % in EU spending.
Not a word about that did the Paymaster General mention.
I want to make one thing clear. We fully accept that we are one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, and we are prepared to pay our fair share to make the EU work. We belong to the EU, we wish to remain in it, and we wish to make it work for Britain and for all member states. We recognise that there is a price to pay for membership, but it must be a fair price, and we must be sure that our


contribution represents value for money. That has been the Conservative approach to our EU contribution, and it will remain so.
For 18 years, we put value for money at the very top of our agenda. Is it not remarkable that, in their very first attempt, the Labour Government have failed to secure value for money? I pause to reflect how ironic it is that, at the same time as we are being asked to pay more, the Governments who are punishing their own people by over-tight deflationary policies simply to meet the Maastricht criteria are being rewarded by being asked to pay lower contributions.
Even more remarkable is a press statement that was issued by the Treasury on 11 July, headed "Statement on the 1997 Community Budget: European Community Finances". There is even a very helpful note to editors. Surely in such a press statement, the Government would set out the details of the huge budget increase—but not a word. The Government shout from the rooftops about transparency and open government, but when there is bad news to tell, they hide it in the basement of Millbank tower in a shabby and unacceptable way.
Why is our subscription to rise by such a huge sum? We are told that it is due, as I have said, first, to our strong economic performance, secondly, to the reduction in our rebate of £20 billion, and thirdly, to a 3 per cent, increase in EU spending. We well understand the first of those reasons. Those are the rules, and we accept in broad outline the consequence of Conservative economic success.
But what about our hard-won rebate? Surely the Labour Government have not already, after a few short weeks in the job, thrown in the towel. Why has our rebate been slashed—£200 million wiped out at a stroke? How many schools and hospitals could have been built for that sum? What action have the Government taken to prevent the rebate being slashed? Was the fact that our rebate is to go what the Chancellor meant when he said that he was against "permanent opt-outs"?
The Paymaster General must deal with such matters in winding up. The country is entitled to ask whether we can rely on Labour to maintain our rebate. Can we trust Labour with our Euro-finances? On such evidence, we clearly cannot.
Why is the Chancellor prepared—so he tells us—to be ruthless this year with public spending at home? There is to be no more money this year for teachers, schools, nurses and patients, and not a penny more for our police or firemen. He is miserly when it comes to domestic spending, but he shells out our money abroad as though sterling were going out of fashion. Perhaps it will, in Labour's hands. The Chancellor says that he is an iron Chancellor at home, but surely he is a plasticine Chancellor abroad—well and truly moulded by his European partners.
How can the Paymaster General bear to write the cheque for our extra Euro-spending when there is not a penny more for our own people? Why was not the matter raised at the Amsterdam summit? Surely, in Amsterdam, the Prime Minister already knew that our contribution was set to rise. Why did he not fight that increase? What happened to our ace negotiator? Had he slipped out to the washroom while the matter was being discussed?
We know that the Prime Minister failed utterly to get progress on enlargement, failed completely to get a binding deal on quota hopping, and—it appears—failed

hopelessly to protect our financial interests. Perhaps he was out of the meeting for rather a long time. No wonder the Government have tried, in their embarrassment, to sweep the matter under the carpet; no wonder they have not made proper disclosure to the House of Commons or issued a proper press release on it.
Most serious of all, we learn that fraud is on the increase in the EU. We learn that 6 per cent, of the revenue collected from member states in 1996 was lost in fraud—a massive jump from 3.6 per cent, in 1995. In other words, moneys lost through fraud have increased by two thirds in 12 months.
Why did not the Prime Minister say at the Amsterdam summit that we would not give a single penny more to Brussels until the alarming increase in fraud had been dealt with? That would have been a perfectly sensible position to take. Is it because he is so desperate to be liked in Europe and never to be isolated in Europe?
Surely the Prime Minister could have worked out the similarity between two figures—a 2.4 per cent, increase in moneys lost in fraud and a 3 per cent, increase in the EU budget—and simply said that there will be no more money for Brussels until it puts an axe to the root of Euro-fraud. He went to Amsterdam armed with a veto, and he could have used it in a most reasonable manner by refusing a budget hike until fraud has been dealt with. The country would have supported him in that, and our European partners would have understood, but he refused. He bottled out, and he failed—but then, in his hands, our veto is a deterrent that is never to be used.
In his reply, will the Paymaster General deal with the issues that I have raised? Will he tell us why the Government have attempted to conceal the increase? Why has there not been proper debate on the Floor of the House? Where is accurate information on the matter? Why did the Prime Minister not stand up for British interests at Amsterdam? Why did he not take tougher action on fraud and use his veto in Britain's interests?
Is not the sad truth that the Government failed in their first opportunity to lead for Britain in Europe? The Government's mistakes are many, not only a few, and Labour simply cannot be trusted with the people's money.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) started his speech with some misplaced quotations on our Budget by the International Monetary Fund, and I should like to take a couple of minutes to put him right on them. The IMF mission statement said:
The new Government has made an excellent start. It has set a high standard for its economic policies, aiming to maintain stability and foster long-term growth while seeking fairness in developing human potential. It has taken decisive steps towards these goals by making the Bank of England independent, introducing a Budget that makes rapid strides towards sound public finances, and initiating welfare-to-work and other programmes to enhance employability.
Our policies are timely. I can well understand why he did not read on and tell us the full import of the IMF mission statement, because such a whole-hearted endorsement of our policies must cause him some embarrassment.
The hon. Member also mentioned fraud. It would have been illegal to do what was suggested, and we need no lectures—still less, help—from the Opposition on dealing with Europe. Time and again—most clearly in the BSE


crisis—we have seen how all the threats, bluster and vetoes in the world culminated only in a humiliating climbdown by the then Conservative Government. Therefore, we require no lectures on those matters from them.
At Amsterdam, as the hon. Member knows, the Government accepted qualified majority voting on fraud matters, which the previous Government's Euro-scepticism and perpetual search for fights with our partners in Europe prevented them from doing, however much it might have been in the British interest to do so. We will have no truck with the previous Government's tactics, however much they are thrust upon us, because they led to disaster.
On payments—I realise that the hon. Member for South-West Devon is trying to make the story run—it is simply not the case that, in sterling, the UK gross contribution will rise by 32 per cent. Although that story was in the Sunday newspapers, no one has mentioned it since—until today, when he strode to the Dispatch Box and, with such great alarm, tried to revive it. If he had read the Treasury's explanatory memorandum, which made the matter clear, he would know that the figure was produced by comparing sums in ecu that were calculated at very different exchange rates. Moreover, if he would like to go into the details of how we can reconcile any differences, I should be happy to do so.
I shall, however, come straight to the point. As the hon. Member is interested in the underlying increase, in sterling, in gross contributions—which, because we do all our national accounts in sterling, is what should matter to us—I ask him to accept that, between calendar years 1997 and 1998, the figure will probably be about 2 per cent. I stress, however, that that figure is for gross contributions.
I should have thought that the hon. Member would be more interested in net contributions. As he knows, the figures must be projected based on certain assumptions. Next year, they could move up or down—and I stress both those words equally.
The hon. Member is interested in gross contributions, however, and the simple fact—as he will know—is that those underlying increases were introduced by the previous Government precisely to escape the types of fluctuation and misrepresentation that can occur. The percentage increase will be only 2 per cent. Therefore, the gross contribution, in sterling, will rise from £10 billion to £10.2 billion. I hope that I have satisfied his queries on those matters, and that the motion will be accepted by the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.

Orders of the Day — Ministerial and other Salaries Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill's purpose is to provide an automatic link between Ministers' salaries and movements in senior civil service pay bands, and, in so doing, to implement the recommendation of the Senior Salaries Review Body. It is right that we should move in that direction, because it is wrong that, each year, hon. Members should have to debate and vote on ministerial salaries. We once had to do the same for the salaries of hon. Members, and it was a ludicrous exercise. Each year, we must still vote on Ministers' salaries, and it is wrong that we should have to do so. We should not have to vote on our own salaries every year. It is important also that we establish that others—in this case, the SSRB—should determine the applicable linkage and general level of salaries for Ministers.
It is true that the issue has been discussed on many occasions, including—albeit briefly—in the previous Parliament. My predecessor, Tony Newton, was more than a little sympathetic to the proposal that we should establish an automatic linkage in salaries rather than refer the matter to the House every year. He was in favour of introducing legislation similar to this Bill, but there was never sufficient parliamentary time to do so. I am glad that, today, we have found time to deal with a relatively minor but eminently sensible measure.
As I said, the Bill and its provisions are in line with the SSRB recommendations. Recommendation 14 of its 1996 report stated
that a review mechanism"—
should—
be applied automatically, hence forward to the salaries of MPs, Ministers and paid office holders".
Obviously, such a mechanism will affect anyone who is paid under the relevant legislation.
The adjustment would change salaries by the same percentage as the average of movements in the mid-points of the nine senior civil service pay bands. In establishing the automatic uprating mechanism, we will ensure that those types of salaries are kept in line with general pay changes elsewhere in the public sector.
I have to stress that the main objective of the Bill is to remove the requirement for Members of Parliament to vote annually. The automatic annual adjustment is already in place for the salaries of Members of Parliament and that was a step in the right direction. It is important to put the same mechanism in place for Ministers and other salaried positions.
I shall say a word about the main provisions of the Bill in case we do not have prolonged clause stand part debates this evening. Clause 1 will repeal section 1(4) of the 1975 Act and insert two new sections—1A and IB— after section 1 of the Act, to set out the formula to increase automatically the salaries provided for in the Act and to


give power to change salaries or change the formula by affirmative Order in Council. Section 1A sets out the formula. It will operate in the same way as the resolution of the House of Commons on 10 July last year, which uprates the pay of Members of Parliament by reference to the average increase in the mid-points of the nine senior civil service pay bands. It will operate first for ministerial and other salaries on 1 April 1998. Section 1B provides powers to make an order for changing the annual amount of a salary or for providing that the amount of a salary may be determined or changed by reference to another amount or a replacement formula.
Clause 2 will make consequential amendments to the 1975 Act that will be necessary because amounts will no longer be stated on the face of the Act. At present, salaries orders replace figures in the Act with new figures. Under the Bill, salaries may be provided for by applying the formula each year to the existing salary figures or by reference to other amounts or by specifying new amounts. That formula will, of course, be determined by the SSRB. The Bill is a step forward and there is general agreement that we should move in that direction. I commend the Bill to the House.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The packed and tumultuous Benches of aggressive Members of Parliament indicate that the Bill is the subject of considerable controversy. I give a warm general welcome to the Bill. The Opposition will not seek to divide the House, because we agree with the principle behind the Bill. I subscribe to everything that the Leader of the House said in her brief opening speech. I shall however make one or two brief comments.
I know that members of the current Administration have voluntarily forgone an increase in salary this year, although they have indicated—the right hon. Lady will, I am sure, correct me if I am wrong—that they will take it next year. I question the wisdom of that move. By doing such things in the past, Members of Parliament have heaped odium on themselves. If the servant is worthy of his hire, he is worthy of the salary that Parliament has agreed after receiving the report of an independent review body. I counsel against gesture politics that can redound on the heads of those who indulge in it.
The issue is put in perspective if one goes along to the Library and picks up one of the fact sheets that the staff prepare. It is appropriate at this point to pay tribute to the staff of the Library who serve us so well. I have a copy of the fact sheet on ministerial salaries, which was revised this very month. It puts the issue in perspective to read the quotation from Macaulay, given in the fact sheet. Talking about the 18th century, he said:
From the nobleman who held the White Staff and the Great Seal, down to the humblest tidewaiter and gauger, what would now be called gross corruption was practised without disguise and without reproach. Titles, places, commissions, pardons, were daily sold in the market overtly by the greatest dignitaries of the realm; in the 17th Century a statesman who was at the head of affairs might easily, and without giving scandal, accumulate in no long time, an estate amply sufficient to support a dukedom.
If we consider what went on in the past and the sums that were received, we put the modest recompense that we pay Ministers today in sharp focus.
It was because of the recognition of incipient corruption that our predecessors in the last century decided that they had to regularise the position. The fact sheet contains

delightful extracts from the proceedings of the Select Committee on Official Salaries of 1850 which would repay study by all right hon. and hon. Members. Mr. Ellice asked Sir Charles Wood:
If you were to reduce the salaries of public offices very much, would not the consequence be, that no persons who had not large private fortunes could venture to undertake them?
Sir Charles Wood replied:
That would be the consequence. If the salaries of these offices were brought so low as to exclude the possibility of men of small fortune taking them, I conceive it would do a most irreparable injury to the public service, and great injustice to such parties.
Perhaps the language would be slightly different today, but the sentiments still apply.
I wish to make a further, very serious point this afternoon at the beginning of the Government's time in office. We live in a parliamentary democracy with no separation of powers. Ministers of the Crown are Members in this or another place and the Executive are accountable here and in that other place. It is important that Ministers recognise that as their prime, most important duty. I exempt the Leader of the House—I have had the privilege of sitting on the Modernisation Committee in recent weeks and she has conducted that with exemplary skill—from any strictures that I may now make.
We have seen an unfortunate tendency in the past few weeks for Ministers to neglect that prime duty. That tendency was highlighted this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in a point of order. He raised the creation of the rather strange Cabinet Committee yesterday and also cited some of the insults that the House has suffered in recent weeks. We have seen the leak of certain Budget information. Last week, we had to try to tease out of the Government, by means of a private notice question, certain significant developments on health. We then turned on our radios the next morning and heard that some far-reaching changes to our pension system were being proposed. They were not proposed here in the House, but via the "Today" programme. That is very serious. This very week, we have seen the extraordinary leaks from the Dearing report and the Government's reaction.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The debate is about ministerial salaries, not about events of recent days. The odd mention of such matters is perhaps all right, but concentrating on them is not.

Sir Patrick Cormack: But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am merely giving one or two examples of what Ministers receive their salaries for.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am merely giving an instruction about how the hon. Gentleman should proceed.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Ministers receive their salaries for performing their duties and one of their prime duties is to expound and defend their policies in the House. I am pointing out that, in recent days, we have had some sad examples of the neglect of that duty. I think that it is highly relevant to point that out when we are discussing ministerial salaries.
A time-honoured way of criticising a Minister is to move a motion that his salary should be reduced by a notional amount. I should not contemplate tabling such a motion relating to the right hon. Lady at the moment, but I am tempted to think that we might have to consider it for certain of her right hon. colleagues.
We strongly support the general principle of the Bill. As the right hon. Lady rightly said, it is entirely sensible that we should not have to come back year after year to debate this. She has our support on that. That is why the Opposition have no intention of seeking to divide the House. We are talking about ministerial salaries. As a result of the Bill, they will not have to come back year after year. There is all the more reason, therefore, for saying that Ministers should recognise the duties for which their salaries are paid.
The explanatory and financial memorandum says that the Bill provides the power to make orders to make different provision for different circumstances. That cannot lead to arbitrary increases, but it can be used in another way.
I revere this place. This is where the business of the nation should most properly be discussed. This is where announcements of policy by Ministers should properly be made. The prime duty of a Minister resides in this House. To neglect that and to bypass this House is to be guilty of a serious transgression. I hope that those for whom we are about to pass the Bill will recognise that next April, or whenever they take—as they are rightly due to take— the full salaries that Parliament has decreed should be theirs.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) into the intricacies of leaks over recent weeks, ministerial responsibilities, or his historical references about what a duke could live on 150 years ago. I endorse his welcome for the Bill, because it takes away from the House the annual embarrassment of a vote on ministerial and other salaries as with the remuneration of Members of Parliament. I agreed so warmly with the hon. Gentleman that I am almost reluctant to point out to him that during 18 years in power, the former Government, of which he was not a member—I can at least allow him that absolution—broke that principle on many occasions. They broke the linkage and caused embarrassment deliberately for party political reasons. They lived to rue the day. I hope that that will not happen again.
It may not be immediately apparent to all hon. Members that the Bill is also relevant to salaries other than those of Ministers. I understand that it is the base on which the linkage is made for certain payments to Her Majesty's Opposition—the Conservative party. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) obtained the up-to-date figures a few weeks ago. The Leader of the House, in her capacity as President of the Council, was kind enough to give us the information. The current salary of the Conservative Leader of the Opposition is £55,000, paid by the taxpayer. The salary— also paid by the taxpayer—of the Opposition Chief Whip is £31,125, with the Opposition deputy Chief Whip receiving £20,029 and the assistant Opposition Whip also

receiving £20,029. That makes a total of £126,183. I hasten to explain to anyone who is not aware of the fact that other Whips, including me, receive not a penny of public money from that source.
In addition, the salaries and costs of civil servants attached to the Conservative Opposition Whips Office are £88,657. The provision of a car and driver to the Leader of the Opposition costs an estimated £58,095. He has either a well-salaried driver or a big car. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) receives not a penny from that source to make sure that he is mobile.
The President of the Council referred to a little help in kind in her answer, telling us that
The House authorities supply the office with three copies of each of 12 daily newspapers for each day the House is sitting. An exact figure for the total cost is not readily available."—[Official Report, 10 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 524.]
Her Majesty's Opposition, in the form of the Conservative party at present, receive a substantial dollop of money. Now is the time to review that. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire properly drew attention to the fact that the Bill provides different provision for different circumstances. We have different circumstances in this Parliament. The appropriate ratios and remuneration for Her Majesty's Opposition in the 1992–97 Parliament are clearly inappropriate for the current 1997 to whenever Parliament.
I do not know the right criteria. Perhaps the payments could be age-related. The Leader of the Opposition is much younger than the leaders of some other parties. They could be size-related, based on the number of seats occupied by a party. The Conservative party occupies three or four times as many seats as the Liberal Democrats, so perhaps that is the right ratio.
There has been a qualitative, as well as quantitative, change in the role performed in this place by the parties. That has been apparent in recent weeks. This week, providing opposition to the Social Security Bill—the proper role of Her Majesty's Opposition—fell to the Liberal Democrats, because the Conservatives all went home, did not divide the House and did not argue against the Bill. Last week, when we debated the capping of local authority expenditure, the Conservatives were gone. Who performed the role of Her Majesty's Opposition? It was the Liberal Democrats. If there is to be remuneration, the money should go with the job. Now is the opportunity to review that.
We are talking about a considerable sum—at least, it is for my party; it may not be for the Conservative party. Some £300,000 or thereabouts is a goodly sum. It would get me out of some of the difficulties that I have in trying to employ the quality of staff I require.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument. How much would he like to receive?

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting that suggestion to me. I should be happy to see what the Government were prepared to offer. Clearly, it would have to be on a pro rata basis. I have already suggested that the salary paid to the Leader of the Opposition might be age-related. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil would then receive more than the leader of


the Conservative party. If the payment were based on the number of seats, the ratio might be different. That is not a matter for me. I am merely taking up the point of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire that the Bill provides for different levels of remuneration in different circumstances. I am saying that there are different circumstances in this Parliament and that we should follow that argument through to its conclusion.

Sir Patrick Cormack: How does the hon. Gentleman respond to the point made this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that he is now a quasi member of the Government, receiving all the benefits that membership of a Cabinet Committee confers?

Mr. Tyler: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman raised that point because he, like me, has an interest in history. He will know as well as I do that on several past occasions in our Parliament, Members of Opposition parties have taken a role in government. It has not been across the whole broad sweep of policy, but they have been involved in specific activities on specific issues where there has been agreement. I think that he is with me on this. I must not betray the confidences of the Committee considering the modernisation of the procedures of the House, but from his contributions there, I think that he understands and agrees that this is now a different sort of Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is getting at. There is mention in the Bill of funding for Opposition parties, but it is a narrow Bill, primarily about ministerial salaries. I want to point that out to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was led astray by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire.
The Bill provides a very good framework for ensuring that we do not have the annual argy-bargy on the Floor of the House on ministerial or parliamentary salaries. I hope that we can hear from the Leader of the House on the specific question of whether she is prepared to review those sums paid to opposition parties which come within the ambit of this Bill. In the meantime, I hope that we can acknowledge that this is a useful, sensible and flexible framework to work on in future. I welcome the Bill.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack); I, too, have no intention of dividing the House on the Bill. I agree with the main thrust of the Bill, but I should like to make a few observations.
It seems fitting that, when we have an opportunity to consider ministerial salaries, we should look also at the performance that justifies a salary higher than that of an ordinary Back Bencher. The three matters that I wish to raise are serious and, as yet, unresolved. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to shed light on them this afternoon.
In the commercial world, job performance is usually reviewed annually and improvements and an increase in responsibility are rewarded with a salary increase.

The reverse process is also not unknown. For Ministers, that process is not so transparent, even to the individual Minister, who may not receive any appraisal of his or her performance. I hope that the Minister will address directly the points I wish to raise on the performance of certain Ministers who receive salaries in respect of duties they are, or were, expected to fulfil.
First, since the general election I have tabled 60 questions to the Department of Trade and Industry and indicated that a named day response was required, in accordance with the rules of the House. Of those 60 questions, 15 were answered directly and 45—more than two thirds—were delayed by a holding answer. At 3.30 this afternoon, 17 questions were still unanswered, but four have been answered subsequently. Mine is not an isolated case; other hon. Members have had the same experience. Today's Hansard indicates that at least 12 of the questions tabled to the Department of Trade and Industry were originally given holding answers. The answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was a one-word answer, "No." What was so difficult about that that it took five more days than the target date? What hope is there for open government if the Minister, as was the case in that question, refuses point blank to list the name of colleagues in the House who have responded to a simple questionnaire?
Many of the questions that are unanswered are simple questions of fact, not complex policy issues. Madam Speaker has indicated that she has no remedy available to her. When the Ministers are receiving salaries of between £67,000 and nearly £88,000, we should not expect that level of performance. A complete failure to meet deadlines does not augur well.
The Department of Trade and Industry has not had an auspicious start with its new team. In addition to the prevarication—I hope that it is not incompetence—over written answers, there are other irregularities that have not been answered. The President of the Board of Trade receives a salary of more than £87,000 a year, but has not yet resolved the position of the Minister of State in another place, Lord Simon. Anthony Bevins, writing in The Independent on 15 July, asserts that the House of Commons was misled over the Minister's non-BP shares, which the President of the Board of Trade asserted in an answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) had been placed in a blind trust. Apparently, the legal structure of the transfer was proposed on 18 June and, subsequently, my right hon. Friend was told that they had not, after all, been placed in trust. Has the transfer at last been effected? How can the President's pronouncements be reconciled with the facts? I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give us an answer.
In addition, we are assured that the Minister is not now making decisions on any matters that may involve BP, but he is signing documents concerning gas liberalisation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill deals with the mechanism for ministerial salaries. The hon. Lady is now discussing the responsibilities of Ministers. In fact, she is


discussing a specific responsibility. Will she talk about the mechanism for ministerial salaries rather than such specific matters?

Mrs. Gillan: I respect your pronouncements from the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to develop an argument that is directly related to the Bill, but it is taking me some time to reach the main point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will know that I give hon. Members some time to develop their argument, but after a certain stage I tell them that the development is over and that they must get to the point. The hon. Lady is now at that stage. She must deal with the specifics of the Bill.

Mrs. Gillan: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Perhaps I can assist the House and the hon. Lady. I understand that the Minister to whom the hon. Lady is referring does not receive a ministerial salary.

Mrs. Gillan: I understand—the Leader of the House will be able to confirm this—that the Minister does have a private office, a car and all the trappings that go with ministerial office.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell both sides of the House that my ruling still stands. We are talking about a Bill dealing with the mechanism for salaries, not about the responsibilities of Ministers. There are other occasions for discussing such matters and perhaps the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) could use some ingenuity in finding them. She is not to raise them during the debate on this Bill.

Mrs. Gillan: Fine.
I shall continue to develop my argument. I was seeking to make the point that, despite the fact that the Minister to whom I am alluding has waived his salary he is in receipt of the trappings of ministerial office and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to help the hon. Lady. She will see that the long title says that the Bill would
Make provision for the alteration of salaries payable under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975.
The trappings of office have nothing to do with the Bill.

Mrs. Gillan: I am linking that with another Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry where an alteration of salary should perhaps be considered. If I can continue with my thread—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not like to be blunt, but I must be blunt now. No, the hon. Lady cannot continue with her thread. She must get back to the specifics of the Bill.

Mrs. Gillan: I shall move on to discuss another Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry—the

Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. I believe that he receives a salary of about £67,500. Before that Minister entered office, he expended a great deal of effort—rightly—getting to know the travel industry and I think that he considers himself an expert. I am sure that the travel industry welcomed the fact that he gained ministerial responsibility for receiving the as yet unpublished Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into the travel industry.
According to a written answer from the President of the Board of Trade, on 1 July the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs withdrew from those responsibilities—a couple of days after allegedly making remarks prejudicial to the inquiry at a travel conference in Athens. I have tabled a question asking why he has withdrawn from the inquiry. According to a letter from the President of the Board of Trade to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, the Minister made some comments regarding his fixed views from which he is not prepared to resile. Because of that obvious conflict, he has had to sacrifice the knowledge he so assiduously gained from years of travelling and instead take no role in the proceedings.
If the Minister finds himself unable to perform on an important part of his brief, for which he receives a ministerial salary, why are we paying him at that level? However, if, as the President of the Board of Trade said in a written reply to me, the remarks he made in Athens were fully in line with Government policy and innocuous, why has he removed himself from the MMC inquiry? There is a discrepancy between the Minister's action and the letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and the written response by the President of the Board of Trade.
There are discrepancies concerning the other Minister but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have ruled me out of order. Before the Bill passes through the House, I hope that the Leader of the House will cover the two matters I have raised, not least to clarify the obvious confusion that has been created by delaying and blocking answers, conflicting statements and some rather surprising manoeuvres by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs in removing himself from part of the job that he was originally billed by the Government as fulfilling in return for a ministerial salary. Within two months of entering the Government, both that Minister and the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe appear to have changed their ministerial briefs radically. Questions will persist in all our minds unless the Government deliver full explanations.
In the commercial world, where an individual is recruited to fulfil a highly paid specific role, it would be most unusual for that role to change within a few days of taking up the appointment without a full inquiry and exchange of information. Our standards should be no less in government—indeed, it is arguable that they should be far higher.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I speak again because the hon. Lady is worrying me with her statements, which are not relevant to the Bill. The Bill is about how ministerial salaries will be adjusted in future, yet the hon. Lady is talking about specific Ministers and their role. There may be some other way—perhaps an Adjournment debate—


whereby she can raise these matters and get the Ministers responsible to give an account of themselves. She really is going well outside the scope of the Bill.

Mrs. Gillan: Thank you for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just concluding my remarks in a way that is directly related to the Bill. Questions must be asked when Ministers who have waived or who are in receipt of full ministerial salaries have their briefs cut down in size, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Should not explanations be provided and perhaps even adjustments made in their salaries in response?
I hope that the Leader of the House will respond in the spirit in which I have raised these matters, because there are few opportunities to do so in the House. I hope that she will give a full answer tonight.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly to the debate.
I shall start with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who invited me to enter into the spirit of her comments. On that basis, I do not think that most of her comments were relevant to the debate and the spirit of the debate was somewhat marred by her unnecessary accusations. Indeed, they detracted from its main purpose, which is to discuss how ministerial salaries will be adjusted in future.
However, I shall take up one point that the hon. Lady raised—that relating to Ministers' job performance. She will know from her time as a Minister that it is not true to say, as she did, that there is no appraisal of Ministers. Leaving aside the obvious appraisal by the Prime Minister and the resulting promotions and demotions, all Ministers, like all Members of Parliament, are under constant appraisal, not only by other hon. Members and the general public, but by their constituents. That is probably the best possible type of appraisal.

Mrs. Gillan: I hope that the right hon. Lady appreciates that I have raised this matter tonight because I consider it to be a matter of great concern. How does she suggest we remedy the situation when Ministers who are responsible for entering into the spirit of the Standing Orders of the House, such as Standing Order No. 18 by which we table questions for an answer in three days, do not meet those targets? How does she suggest we enable Ministers to meet those targets? What sanctions are available to us when they fail to do so? Madam Speaker ruled that there were no sanctions available to the House and that it was entirely up to Ministers.

Mrs. Taylor: I recall the hon. Lady raising this point before; we checked from the time when she was a Minister at the Department for Education and Employment. It was quite common then for Ministers in that Department to use holding answers where they thought it appropriate. That will continue to be the case. Doing so is often not the Minister's preferred option, but the House is entitled to accurate answers and that may require the use of a holding answer.
To return to the main purpose of the Bill and of the debate, I was pleased that the hon. Members who spoke, even the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, welcomed the Bill and the thrust of the proposals.

The measures have been around for some time and it is important that there should be consensus in the House when we are dealing with topics of this nature. I therefore welcome the remarks of the hon. Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). We are all of one mind about the purpose of the legislation. We are also all of one mind that it is somewhat undignified for Members of Parliament to have to vote either on their own salaries or on that of Ministers. That should be avoided as far as possible and the Bill is a step in that direction.
Not surprisingly, given his background, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire gave us some history to the issue, which put into perspective some of the comments we occasionally hear about salaries, both of Ministers and of hon. Members. He raised questions about the voluntary denial ordinance on Cabinet Ministers. It is true that Cabinet Ministers, who are entitled to a salary of £60,000, are actually taking the old salary, which I am informed is £43,991. He questioned the wisdom of that. I understand why: if people do not fall in line with recommendations, there can be problems relating to catching up or to future increases. I say simply that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made it clear before the election that he was opposed to the move and it was a case of keeping that promise. However, the hon. Gentleman was right to point out the difficulties that can occur.

Sir Patrick Cormack: So that we are in no doubt, will the right hon. Lady confirm whether it is the Government's intention that Ministers should take next year what they have forgone this year?

Mrs. Taylor: It was made clear at the time of the announcement that the new salaries would not be taken and that we would not take what we had forgone by way of receiving the money at some stage, but that we would go on to the new salary level at the start of the next financial year. I had one slight disagreement with the hon. Gentleman when he said that Ministers receive modest recompense. I do not think that it is modest any more and one way to ensure that it is in line with what it should be is to use a mechanism such as we propose in the Bill.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire spoke about the fact that we do not have separation of powers or Ministers from outside Parliament and that Ministers should be responsive and ensure that they are always accountable to the House. That is a point of principle on which there can be no disagreement whatsoever and it is important that we stick by that practice. Serious attempts are made to do so and Madam Speaker's comments about a significant change in Government policy being reported to the House are something that Ministers can and do take on board.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire should not always believe everything he reads in the papers, or assume that every point of order raised on the Floor of the House is correct. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) suggested that the White Paper on Scottish devolution had been deliberately leaked. I wrote to him immediately asking for the evidence that he said was in his possession. I also contacted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who made inquiries in his office and with the newspaper concerned. We were able to say categorically that there had been no


such leak. The hon. Member for Woodspring appears to have accepted the point and he wrote me a letter this afternoon to that effect. Sometimes points of order create the impression that something has gone wrong when that is not necessarily so.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Of course I accept what the right hon. Lady has just said. Equally she will accept that there has been a disturbing number of leaks. I hope that she is as opposed to them as we are.

Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure that that is right. I do not want to imply that I disbelieve the hon. Gentleman, who speaks in good faith, but sometimes people have looked at what is written in policy documents before the election and drawn assumptions about what has later been translated into policy. That is not deliberate leaking: it is people working out the direction of Government policy. That is wholly reasonable.
I want to get back to the debate and to the Bill, since I see you on the edge of your seat, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that there is agreement about moving in the proposed direction. I welcome the points made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, who spoke of taking away the annual embarrassment. That is what this is all about. Indeed, during the previous debate on these measures, a Conservative Member called the procedure demeaning—and so it is when Ministers and Members of this House have to vote on these issues.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall raised some interesting points about the salaries of the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip. I have said for a long time that I believe that there is a strong case for looking at the funding of political parties. There is widespread agreement that the issue should receive further attention. Given the increased number of Liberal Democrats in the House, I understand why the hon. Gentleman is anxious to emphasise that the balance within the Opposition has changed. He is also anxious to make the point that he opposed certain ideas the Conservative Government did not oppose—but that is for Opposition Members to decide. They can argue among themselves about who the Opposition on any particular topic really are.
It is important to have an official Opposition, and we think it right to give public funds to Opposition parties to assist them to carry out their functions in this House. That is good for a healthy democracy. Hon. Members may squabble about the amounts, but the principle has been established and it should command general agreement.

Mr. Tyler: Does the right hon. Lady agree that this, perhaps, is the moment at which an initiative in this area

would be most timely, given public concern about the financial difficulties in which political parties in opposition find themselves if they are not properly resourced to perform their functions? Those functions are a necessary part of democracy and of this place. Furthermore, does she agree with the current concern about foreign donations to some political parties? This may be a good moment for that to be reviewed in a wider context.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I trust that the right hon. Lady will not respond to that intervention, which had nothing to do with the Bill.

Mrs. Taylor: I shall of course follow your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and not respond—except to echo what I said earlier. There has long been a case for reviewing some of the wider issues that have been tangentially raised this evening.
When the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked him what salary he thought he should be paid, the hon. Member for North Cornwall replied that he was open to offers. It is not for me to make any offers on the basis of age or size—whatever the hon. Gentleman's suggestion meant—but in the long term, as the hon. Gentleman said, issues of this kind can be reviewed.
This is a modest measure, both simple and straightforward. It will be of great advantage to the House to remove these salaries as far as possible from our remit. On that basis I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order [18 July].

Orders of the Day — MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1 )(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Ministerial and other Salaries Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament, or charged on the Consolidated Fund, under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Ministerial and other Salaries Bill

Considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Lockerbie

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Tarn Dalyell: It would be churlish of me not to offer a dollop of sympathy to my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office, because he comes now to a debate on a subject on which there have already been 11 Adjournment debates. I know very well that he is responsible for an important White Paper tomorrow, but parliamentary good fortune seldom smiles on us. It is my good fortune, however, to have the time to deploy yet again an aspect of the case that is Lockerbie. I offer no apology for doing so, however, because the matter is not trivial. It is extremely important, not only for the relatives who want the truth about the death of their loved ones on 21 December 1988, but from the point of view of our country.
Before charges were laid, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who is present, several others and I went to Libya. Apart from anything else, we saw the importance of Libya to the British economy. It is an Arab country which is placing massive orders. Anyone who doubts the importance of this issue should know that it is reliably reported that, when President Mandela came to visit my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week, at the South African President's insistence this subject took up 40 minutes of the hour that he had with the British Prime Minister. It is, therefore, a matter of considerable importance, and the time of the House of Commons is not improperly used on the issue.
I shall take the opportunity that parliamentary time has given me to explain to the Crown Office the background of the questions that I repeatedly ask different Ministers.
It began back in December 1988—new year's eve, to be precise—when a police officer, a constituent and friend, came to me and said that he was very worried about so many Americans, on the awful site of Lockerbie, searching and rummaging through the wreckage, and possibly destroying important evidence.
The purpose of this Adjournment debate very much concerns the police. It is to request that the incoming Government ask a judge of the Court of Appeal in England, or a distinguished judge from the European Community, or Judge David Edward QC, who is the very distinguished Scottish jurist in the European Court, to review the material that the Crown Office claims to have, and to request that we have a fresh mind on the crucial evidence that the Crown Office says that it has against the two Libyan suspects.
The purpose of the debate is also to request that, eight and a half years after the event—with no ill reflection on the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, or policemen who I believe have worked hard and honourably—the responsibility should be transferred to the Metropolitan police, with its international contacts. Later I shall explain—against the background of my visit to the Metropolitan police, at the request of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, to meet an assistant commissioner—why I request that. It is because of the international contacts of the Metropolitan police.
I return to what we believe happened at the start of the tragedy. I do not minimise the appalling nature of the crime. Anyone who, as I did, went down to Lockerbie and


saw the remnants of a huge airliner strewed over the Scottish countryside must acknowledge that pictures could not convey the horror of that scene. Police from Strathclyde and Lothian, and I believe from the Minister's county of Fife, had to be bussed down there day after day, to help out the smallest force in Britain.
It began, many of us believe, with the shooting down, without apology, by the USS Vincennes of an Iranian airliner carrying about 350 pilgrims from Iran to Mecca. The Iranian Minister of the Interior at the time was Ali Akbar Mostashemi. Mostashemi made repeated statements that blood would rain down in revenge for what had happened. Crucially, he had been the Iranian ambassador in Damascus from 1982 to 1985. He had close contacts with the terrorist drug gangs of Beirut and the Beka'a valley.
Those gangs had infiltrated an American drugs sting operation, by which heroin was taken from the Beka'a, via the Rhein-Main airport in Frankfurt and into the United States. They got hold of a very naive first-time courier; his name was Khaled Jafar. The young man was told that he would be met by "friends" when he reached Frankfurt. He took with him a Samsonite case of the very type that was to feature in the fatal accident inquiry and in the Lockerbie case. The so-called friends took him for, doubtless, a lovely day in Heidelberg and the Neckar valley, during which time other friends—the Neuss gang, for it was they, and Marwen Khreesat in particular— changed the contents from heroin to Semtex. Crucially, the Samsonite case was exempted luggage because of the arrangement at a very high level of the American and German Governments. That is how it got through the usual careful procedures at Frankfurt airport.
I need not go into the rest of the story and the explosion, except to say that some of us believe that, within hours, the Americans had guessed, at a very high level, what had gone wrong. It is a matter of fact that the American helicopters were on site within an hour and 25 minutes. It is a matter of fact that warnings went out to personnel of the embassy in Moscow that they were not to travel. It is also conjecture with a great deal of evidence behind it that the South African general staff, Generals van Tender and Malan, Rusty Evans and Pik Botha, were pulled off that aeroplane. It is also suggested that a number of service men in the American forces in the Rhine army were taken off the pre-Christmas flight.
Places became available and those were taken mostly by students—the young Flora Swire, the young Bill Cadman, Pamela Dix's brother, Helga Mosey and, crucially, 32 students of the university of Rochester, New York. Had it been suggested that during the changing presidency in America—it was the interregnum between President Reagan and President Bush—the American Government and authorities knew sufficient to pull off VIPs and let students and young people travel to their doom, American public opinion would have been outraged.
We believe that, at a very early stage, the American Government asked the then British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, to play Lockerbie low key. It is an incredible fact which I draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that, in the 800 self-serving pages that Margaret Thatcher wrote, she never mentioned Lockerbie once. What she did say was that the

"much-vaunted" Libyan retaliation for her unwarranted attack on Ben Gazi and Tripoli in 1986 never came about. If the British Prime Minister, with her access to intelligence, really believed that, how on earth could she suppose that the Libyans were responsible for the Lockerbie crime?
That is part of the background. We also believe that there never was a Malta connection and that Mr. Tony Gauci of Mary's house in Valetta gave all sorts of different identifications of the people to whom he was supposed to have sold clothing. The hard fact is that, in a court case, Air Malta won damages against Grenada Television for suggesting that it was lax or involved. The Maltese Government, the Maltese police, the airport authorities and Air Malta do not accept that unidentified baggage left Valetta airport.
The Crown Office must consider many other aspects of the legal case. It must forgive our curiosity about how much can be built up from the so-called "forensic evidence" of a slither of micro-circuitry found we do not know when, by whom or in what circumstances, but subject, it appears, to a Scottish winter. And what a Scottish winter or a winter in the Fielder forest would do to a small, delicate mechanism, heaven only knows. Furthermore, the Crown Office has absolutely refused to show its so-called "evidence" either to Edwin Bollier, the head of the makers, or more seriously to his engineer, Ulrich Lumpart. There may be all sorts of legal reasons— one might think that they are legal excuses—for not doing so, but, after eight and a half years, are we not after the truth of what happened, rather than sticking rigidly to tight legal precedent when the price of that tight legal precedent to our country is simply enormous in terms of our relations with the Arab world?
This is more a Foreign Office matter, but I have put two oral questions, which will have been brought to the Prime Minister's attention, first in June and then on 16 July. Like many serious lawyers in Edinburgh, I have ceased to believe that the Crown Office has a case that would not be thrown out within days by any Scottish judge on the ground that there is no case to answer. Bluntly, there has been no serious effort to find the truth. This is a terrible thing to say, but had an effort been made to find the truth, the makers of the critical evidence would have been shown their own slither of micro-circuitry to establish, for instance, its colour. I gather that one cannot judge from a photograph and that the colour might be crucial, in that one batch went to Libya but another went to the Stasi in East Germany. That might have led to a different destination, which was not Libya. Some effort would have been made to ascertain whether the alleged evidence of the timing device went either to East Germany or to Libya, and how.
Many other aspects cast great doubt. One of them dates back to March 1989, when my curiosity was really aroused. That was when the then Secretary of State for Transport, Paul Channon, made a statement at the Garrick club to some half dozen journalists to the effect that he thought that the Lockerbie crime would be solved within days or weeks. I had known Paul Channon since he was Rab Butler's parliamentary private secretary. He is neither a liar nor a fantasist, and he is careful about what he says. It is inconceivable that he would have said that unless he had meant it. I also find it inconceivable that the journalists—experienced Lobby correspondents— misunderstood or misheard what he said. The conclusion


to be drawn is that requests—indeed, orders—in relation to Lockerbie came from a much higher source, namely 10 Downing street.
The Minister of State has notice of a number of serious letters from lawyers in Edinburgh on this matter, which my parliamentary good fortune allows me to go through properly. The first is from Peter Anderson of the well-respected firm, Simpson and Marwick. In his letter to the Prime Minister of 23 June, he says:
My attention has been drawn to the question put to you by the … M.P. for Linlithgow on 18 June 1997 (Hansard 309/310). Whilst mention of my name contributed nothing to their weight and substance, can I nevertheless respectfully suggest that the question and proposal which were advanced, merit very careful additional consideration by your new Government.
Mr. Anderson states:
My interest and involvement in the appalling tragedy of the Lockerbie disaster is well known. I have acted for Pan Am and its insurers throughout and do still have some limited involvement in defending personal injury claims of alleged stress from Lockerbie area residents where liability is denied. This letter however is not written in any capacity as representative of my clients and is not on their instructions or with a view to promoting their interests. Pan Am effectively went out of business following the disaster and the insurers have paid out many millions of dollars which cannot be recovered just because the Libyan connection is doubted. As a result of my fairly extensive knowledge of the background, I do have scepticism as to whether the Crown Office have properly identified the correct accused, and that is shared by many, journalists, lawyers and others. That scepticism grew during my representation of Pan Am and its insurers in the course of the five month Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1990/91, when, as I am sure you have been advised, the now Lord Advocate was senior Crown Counsel assisting the then Lord Advocate, Lord Eraser of Carmyllie QC. It was heightened during the civil damages trial in New York by what I understand was the evidence led there before Chief Judge Platt, and also, importantly by the evidence which he excluded.
I believe that, after the Secretary of State, I was the first Member of Parliament whom Lord Hardie saw after his appointment. He received me in the Crown Office most courteously. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is an honourable man, but as he was a participant in the fatal accident inquiry, he should recognise that there is an additional reason for having a fresh mind look at the topic.
Peter Anderson goes on:
It would be unfair to ask you to consider the series of detailed points that exist made to question whether the two Libyans are still properly to be regarded as the murderers. In my assessment however, the Crown case to the effect that the Libyans achieved the destruction of Flight 103 over Lockerbie by introducing in Malta an unaccompanied bag containing the bomb for transit to Frankfurt and subsequent transfer has always been highly questionable and circumstantial. There is a strong body of evidence from Air Malta to the effect that no unaccompanied bag did travel to Frankfurt carrying an interline tag showing the ultimate destination of New York. For reasons a British lawyer finds extraordinary, Chief Judge Platt chose to exclude that evidence from the consideration of the Jury in the New York civil damages trial. Even if that evidence is disregarded, it has always seemed to me inherently improbable that sophisticated terrorists would adopt a method which required an unaccompanied bag containing a bomb to travel undetected through Malta Airport, then through Frankfurt and then by transfer at London Heathrow onto the Boeing 747 which was ultimately destroyed. The prospects"—
says this careful lawyer, Peter Anderson—
of discovery, inadvertent detonation on some non-US flight or failure to make a connection, makes that scheme full of uncertainty. Such a plot becomes even less likely given that it is known that in late 1988 an Arab terrorist group had a bomb maker in Germany"—

this is a reference to Marwen Khreesat—
who had been detected fitting explosives in a radio of the same type which is said to have contained the Lockerbie bomb and given also that it would have been relatively easy for an airline worker (perhaps Arab or sympathiser, or pressured) in Frankfurt to introduce the suitcase containing the bomb onto the Boeing 737 Pan Am feeder flight from there to London thus avoiding the x-ray and other security measures. That is inherently much more likely.
The Crown Office must reflect on what a heavyweight Edinburgh lawyer says about that. Anderson goes on, however. Assuming that I would be limited to the usual half-hour Adjournment debate, this is a particular part of the letter to which I drew the attention of officials as soon as I knew last week that I was lucky in the ballot.
Anderson states:
These are just a few of the main points which, in my respectful submission, do require careful attention and the time is now right for reconsideration. I am an admirer of the Lord Advocate for his many qualities and not least because of his tenacious cross-examination of my witnesses at the FAI. I do not for an instant question the integrity of Andrew"—
the Lord Advocate—
or for that matter any of the other Crown Office officials who have been involved in this case. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for all of the forensic witnesses whose evidence is vital. At least two have been discredited, one, as I understand because of evidence given in a high profile terrorist trial which was later found to be unsatisfactory and unsafe.
That is a reference to James Thurman. I raised with the previous Prime Minister in oral questions the circumstances in which James Thurman was removed from his job and the possible consequences for the Lockerbie case.
Anderson goes on:
It does appear to me that perhaps the Law Officers and the Crown Office have become too closely identified with a particular view and it is time for an objective reassessment of the evidence. None of that was possible during the FAI"—
the fatal accident inquiry—
where security considerations were high, as was the fear of prejudice to a criminal trial. The forensic witness was led without warning or any opportunity to prepare cross-examination. The evidence about when, where and how bits the bomb and especially the detonator were found much later has never been tested and needs particular scrutiny.
That is a matter to which particular scrutiny should be given by Judge Edward or a judge of the Court of Appeal or a European judge. I hope that the amour-propre of the Scottish legal system will not be a barrier to pursuing that line of inquiry.
Peter Anderson is sensitive to that point. He states:
An ideal candidate to undertake such a review may well be Judge David Edward who, as you know, is Britain's Judge in the European Court and a most distinguished Scots Jurist. Certainly I urge you"—
he is addressing the Prime Minister—
to give the most serious consideration to an independent and no doubt confidential review of the Crown case.
Mr. Anderson continues:
I am of course well aware that there are very large interests and considerations both in Britain and especially the United States which are suited by Libyan blame and it is generally more comfortable to maintain the stance that Libya and its agents were responsible, but it seems to me that principles of Justice ought, especially in a new age of political hope, to rank higher.
I have been in this place for 35 years, and I am not unconscious of Washington's overwhelming influence on any British Government. The question is: what will


happen in the United States as a result of the on-going lawsuits involving not only James Thurman, but Juval Aviv, who was acquitted by an American court?
For the sake of coherence and fairness, I turn now to the reply that Peter Anderson received in a letter from Philip Barton, writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, on 16 July. Mr. Barton says:
The Prime Minister has asked me to thank you for your letter of 23 June about Lockerbie. Your letter raises a number of points about the evidence against the two Libyan accused.
As I am sure you are aware, the prosecuting and investigating authorities have been scrupulous in avoiding the disclosure of details of the evidence in the criminal case for fear of prejudicing the prospects of a trial of the two accused. I can therefore understand why you are concerned about the sufficiency of the evidence. Inevitably, those with access to all the evidence are in the best position to assess the sufficiency of the evidence against the two accused. Four Lord Advocates have concluded that the evidence available against the two Libyan accused is sufficient to justify the proceedings that have been taken against them.
Privilege applies in the House of Commons, and I am very careful about what I say under the rules of privilege. However, I said the same thing in the Inner Temple when I was asked to speak about the matter. Admittedly Lord Justice Hurst, who was in the chair, was extremely uneasy—that may be an understatement—about my comments. However, I bluntly repeat them now.
I think that the first Lord Advocate was in a very vulnerable position. He had lost a blue-chip Conservative seat, which his party believed he should not have lost. He was then appointed Lord Advocate, with great murmurings from heavyweight legal Edinburgh. Soon after, he was faced with a dilemma: pressure was applied from Downing street, as a result of pressure from Washington, that he should restrain himself—I shall put it that way—on the subject of Lockerbie.
I do not know the extent to which Law Officers react when faced with raison d'être and requests from Downing street. I can say only that, being human, it would be very easy for a Lord Advocate to acquiesce in the requests of his Prime Minister. It is rather unlikely that that Lord Advocate would say boo to that Prime Minister.
I assure my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that I am not impressed—and nor are several Edinburgh lawyers, including the professor of Scots law at the university of Edinburgh—that four Lord Advocates have come to similar conclusions. I do not think that I shall be misunderstood when I point out that those four Lord Advocates were advised on the subject by the same one or two important officials. In the circumstances, I do not ask for any kind of investigation of the officials. However, for heaven's sake, it is now eight and a half years later and many of our interests in, and relations with, the Arab world are involved. A legal mind from outside should at least take a fresh look at the case. That is my response to that paragraph of the letter written on behalf of the Prime Minister. Mr. Barton continues:
You may have evidence that has a bearing on the case against the two Libyans. The investigation remains open and the prosecuting and investigating authorities will consider any evidence brought to their attention. If you do have any evidence pertinent to the criminal investigation, I would urge you to bring it forward so that it can be properly considered.
That is a very passive attitude to adopt in view of what we have read about the findings of the state prosecutor in Frankfurt regarding Abolhassem Mesbahi, a co-founder of

Iranian intelligence. I consider everything that I read with great caution, but it is not realistic simply to imply that some Iranian who is in hiding in Germany should report to the police in Dumfries and Galloway. That is part of my argument as to why the case should be handed to the Metropolitan police, who deal with their international contacts every day. Mr. Barton continues:
You suggest that the Law Officers and Crown Office have become so closely identified with a particular view that their assessment of the evidence is partial. The Lord Advocate in the discharge of his legal duties is entirely independent from Government influence.
I am sorry, but a hoarse laugh from one in this place who has watched Lord Advocates and Crown Officers over 35 years. Lord Advocates, like Attorneys-General, are members of the Government and must balance various issues. Mr. Barton goes on:
It is quite unthinkable that one Lord Advocate, let alone four, would allow themselves to be associated with anything other than a fair consideration of all the evidence.
I am sorry, but it is not unthinkable to me—it is all too thinkable. The letter continues:
You also suggest that a Judge of the European Court should review the evidence. I should point out that consideration of the evidence in a criminal case is a matter within the exclusive purview of the Lord Advocate.
Does the Lord Advocate really determine the nature of our relations with the Arab world—a subject upon which President Mandela, on behalf of the Organisation of African Unity, spent two thirds of his time with the Prime Minister? Is that matter simply to be left to the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office? That is preposterous. The letter continues:
If the Lord Advocate concludes that there is a sufficiency of evidence, after a full consideration of all the details of that evidence, then the appropriate forum to test the case is the criminal trial of those standing accused of the charges.
Again, that is all very well, but we have no extradition treaty with Libya. The Libyans say, "We see the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. We hear all these rumours of unsafe decisions in British courts of law. What on earth will happen to the Libyan Two?" I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that, if the boot were on the other foot and there were two Scots whom we believed to be innocent, I am not sure that we would ship them to Tripoli, so I am not impressed by that part of the reply.
Peter Anderson's response was:
I received the expected reply from the Prime Minister's Private Secretary and attach a copy of it. Whilst it says what I always thought it would, I seriously question whether any of the four Lord Advocates have reviewed, with detailed scrutiny, the evidence and whether they have asked the pertinent relevant questions of those who have been reporting to them.
That is Peter Anderson's view; it is also mine. It will be within the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Minister that I asked for an interview with the Government's troubleshooter, the Minister without Portfolio, who gave me half an hour, listened attentively and undertook—I am sure that he will carry out his word—that the matter would be looked at in various places in the Government. Now is the urgent time to set about that task, as my hon. Friend promised.
On 17 July, I asked the Prime Minister,
pursuant to … the answer of 11 July, Official Report, column 626, if he will transfer responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing to the Metropolitan police.


The Prime Minister replied:
Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary have from the outset conducted the Lockerbie Criminal Investigation. There is no reason to depart from that. The investigation relates to the mass murder of 270 people committed in Scotland. My noble and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, has responsibility for ensuring that crimes in Scotland are properly investigated and Section 12 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 authorises him to issue instructions to any Chief Constable with regard to reporting offences alleged to have been committed in his area. The transfer of this inquiry to the Metropolitan Police would remove that power from the Lord Advocate in this case and would impede the proper investigation of it."—[Official Report, 17 July 1997; Vol. 298. c. 258.]
I should like to know what proper investigation has been done. Has there been any investigation of reports coming out of Qom in Iran? My hon. Friend the Minister will have received documents from Mr. Stephen Breen of The Scotsman on what has happened at Qom, the holy city in Iran. There were claims, on 23 December 1988, that great vengeance had been taken on the Americans, with all sorts of colourful language beloved of certain mullahs. When the Iranian Government found that the situation was really very awkward, they decided that they should all be withdrawn by the holiest of orders and commands.
All that material, which was given to The Scotsman and its reporter, Mr. Stephen Breen, who has taken such a long-term and sustained interest in these matters, was sent to the Crown Office. I give this as an example. How can one expect the Dumfries and Galloway police, for all their virtues, to have the resources to launch an investigation that may well mean making detailed inquiries through some Iranian expert, and certainly our embassy in Teheran? That is one reason why the matter should be given to the Metropolitan police.
There is another reason. Because of my interest in Lockerbie, I became extremely concerned—it should be the concern of the Crown Office, too—about the brutal and terrible murder in this city of Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher. With the agreement of Queenie Fletcher, her mother, I raised with the Home Office the three remarkable programmes that were made by Fulcrum, and their producer, Richard Bellfield, called "Murder at St. James's". Television speculation is one thing, but this was rather more than that, because on film was George Stiles, the senior ballistics officer of the British Army, who said that, as a ballistics expert, he believed that the WPC could not have been killed from the second floor of the Libyan embassy, as was suggested.
Also on film was my friend, Hugh Thomas, who talked about the angles at which bullets could enter bodies, and the position of those bodies. Hugh Thomas was, for years, the consultant surgeon of the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast, and I suspect that he knows more about bullets entering bodies than anybody else in Britain. Above that was Professor Bernard Knight, who, on and off, has been the Home Office pathologist for 25 years. He was considered a distinguished enough pathologist to be put in charge of Cromwell street. When Bernard Knight gives evidence on film that the official explanation could not be, it is time for an investigation.
With the agreement of the Home Secretary, I contacted Sir Paul Condon, who was very helpful and said, "You must go and talk to my assistant commissioner, David Veness." I spent the Thursday before last—I had never done it before—in Scotland Yard, and talked at length, explaining exactly why I was seeming to meddle in the

case of Yvonne Fletcher. I have to say that the senior police officers, David Veness and Chief Detective Superintendent McDowall, were extremely nice to me, and said, rather movingly, that in 20 years there were half a dozen crimes that they would particularly like to solve, and Yvonne Fletcher's was one of them, because she was, as they put it, "one of our own". I can understand that.
I then asked, "In this kind of investigation, frankly, can any small force conduct the international type of inquiry that the Met can, with its resources?" The answer was no. I am not saying to the House that the Met was asking to be involved in Lockerbie. I am just stating the fact that if we are serious about it, it must be the major police force, and not, for all its virtues, a small police force. I understand that fourth-generation police officers are now dealing with the case, as those who were there in 1988 are either retired or promoted—and probably very rightly promoted, as in the case of the present chief constable of Lothian, Roy Cameron. Let us be realistic about the matter.
On 17 July, I asked the Prime Minister,
pursuant to his answer of 14 July … what steps he proposes to bring to a conclusion the Lockerbie issue.
The Prime Minister replied:
As I told my hon. Friend on 18 June, Official Report, column 509, we will try every avenue to make progress in this matter, but the onus is on Libya to comply with the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions."—[Official Report, 17 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 25S-59.]
Those resolutions, however, were formulated a long time ago. That is deeply unsatisfactory—and even more unsatisfactory, as the Crown Office should realise, because of what happened in relation to Juval Aviv.
On 18 June, I asked the Prime Minister
if he will discuss with President Clinton the consequences for policy in relation to approaching the UN to lift sanctions against Libya of the acquittal of Juval Aviv by an American court.
The Prime Minister replied:
As my hon. Friend knows, Juval Aviv has been acquitted by an American court. We are also aware of the allegations that have been made by him, but the advice that I have received is that it does not alter the case that the existing evidence in respect of those who perpetrated the Lockerbie bombing suggests that it was carried out by Libyans.
I know the rules about internal matters in the Government, but a Prime Minister who was going to Hong Kong, Denver and Amsterdam—and, indeed, around the world—with all his other responsibilities, would naturally have to rely on advice.
Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is a distinguished lawyer, that asking one of his senior legal colleagues—a judge at the Court of Appeal— to cast a glance at the issue eight and a half years later is not an unreasonable request.
The Prime Minister went on:
I believe that the United Nations Security Council sanctions should remain until the Security Council resolutions are properly and fully complied with; they are not being complied with at the moment."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296 , c. 309.]
With respect, the whole UN policy depends on what is in the Crown Office in Edinburgh. On another occasion, the Prime Minister rightly told me that it was not the Security Council's business to carry out such investigations, yet it was having to take the word of the Crown Office in Edinburgh.
I warned my hon. Friend the Minister's private secretary that I would quote from a letter, dated 18 July 1997, from Alistair Duff, another well-known Edinburgh lawyer, who represents the two Libyans. He wrote:
I know that you have been lucky enough to secure an adjournment debate on the subject of Lockerbie and the Crown Office. I wish to raise with you a matter of concern to me and, I know, to others involved in the Scottish criminal justice system.
After the recent revelations about the information supplied to the German authorities by the Iranian agent our Government and the Crown Office were pressed to indicate what steps they would take to investigate this 'evidence' pointing, yet again, to Iranian involvement in the bombing. The reply, as ever, was that 'anyone with information to report should forward it to Dumfries and Galloway police'! Notwithstanding the high regard which I have for our police forces and acknowledging the undoubtedly diligent attitude of the Dumfries police, this official mantra is nothing other than a formula for inaction. Furthermore, my view, shared I believe by professional colleagues, is that the refusal by Government and Crown Office to take such evidential developments seriously (and to be seen to be doing so) is bringing the Scottish system of criminal justice into disrepute. The notion that the former Iranian agent, from a hideout in Germany, should contact the desk sergeant at Dumfries police station, as if surrendering his driving licence for examination would be laughable if it was not the inevitable response which emanates from Crown Office every time another line of enquiry apparently opens.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Crown Office simply does not want to pursue avenues of investigation which might lead to inconvenient destinations.
I hope that you may take account of these views in pressing the Government during the debate.
That letter was written by a well-respected Edinburgh lawyer.
Yet another Edinburgh lawyer wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister—the QC who is Professor of Scots law at the university of Edinburgh, Robert Black. In his letter of 21 July, which my hon. Friend will have read, he wrote:
I understand that a further Adjournment Debate on the Lockerbie bombing is soon to take place, and that you will be replying on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
May I, as a native of Lockerbie and as a Scots lawyer who has attempted to keep abreast of developments in this tragic affair, urge you to give serious consideration to permitting the evidence against the Libyan accused persons to be reviewed by a senior member of the judiciary not currently serving in Scotland, with a view to determining whether in quantity and quality, that evidence is prime facie sufficient to justify the charges which have been laid against the accused.
There is a growing body of opinion within the legal profession in Scotland that, whatever may have been the evidential position in November 1991 when the petition naming the Libyan accused was presented to the sheriff in Dumfries, subsequent developments (such as the disclosure of the apparent lack of any documentary evidence whatever showing that an unaccompanied suitcase was routed from Malta via Frankfurt onto Pan Am Flight 103 at London; the discrediting in criminal proceedings in the United States of evidence emanating from the American forensic scientists whose findings appear to be the thesis"—
indeed, the linchpin of the thesis—
of Libyan involvement in the Lockerbie bombing) have undermined the case advanced in that petition. The Crown Office in Scotland, however, gives the (perhaps unwarranted) impression of being reluctant to consider the impact of evidence which became available only after 1991 upon the material available to it when the petition was originally drawn up.
We do not know that anything has really happened since 1991. If the Crown Office and the police have been active, all that we can say is that we have no evidence

that they have been so. In fact, it looks as if the hatches had been battened down. To put it bluntly, nothing has been done.
Professor Black goes on:
It is in order to counteract this impression, and with a view to maintaining the deservedly high reputation of the Crown Office in the investigation and prosecution of crime in Scotland, that I earnestly request Her Majesty's Government to invite a senior judge to conduct an independent review of the whole evidence now available in relation to the Lockerbie bombing. Any of the following would appear to me to be suitable persons to perform this function. Judge David Edward (the United Kingdom judge on the European Court of Justice), Lord Hope of Craighead or Lord Clyde (the present Scottish Lords of Appeal in Ordinary).
The Scottish legal system could not be affronted if either of those two Lords of Appeal in Ordinary from Scotland, who are extremely clever and distinguished judges, was asked to look at the evidence. After eight and a half years, witnesses' memories dim. Potential witnesses die or become old and forgetful. If nothing is done, how long are we expected to go on supporting these sanctions against Libya?
After all, by 1953 the perpetrators of the atrocities at Auschwitz and Buchenwald were being helped and welcomed back into the European community of nations. Is there a difference between an Arab and a European country, because that question is beginning to be rather sharply asked?
Back to the lawyers. George More, another well-known Edinburgh lawyer, wrote to the Prime Minister on 14 July:
Dear Prime Minister,
I have acted on behalf of the Libyan Peace Committee as their Legal Adviser in Scotland since 1992 in relation to the Lockerbie case. I visited Libya in 1992 and again in 1995 and I keep in touch with my contact in Tripoli. From what I have seen, and from the information I have received, there is no doubt that the U. N. Sanctions have caused a considerable amount of suffering in Libya and tragically it is the ordinary people who have suffered the most.
In the light of the revelations in The Scotsman newspapers last week and the police investigation being carried out in Frankfurt, both of which indicate that the downing of Flight Pan-Am 103 in December 1988, was sponsored by the Iranian Government, I feel very strongly that your Government should ensure that all new information is thoroughly investigated. It would be most unjust for the Libyan people to continue to suffer as a result of the Sanctions even if it was only possible that the Libyan Government was not involved in the crime. As a supporter of your Government, and in the belief that you can bring a fresh mind to the whole problem, I urge you to ensure that all necessary investigations are now carried out as soon as possible to avoid any unfairness to the Libyan people.
The Minister has received a letter from the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding signed by Cyril Townsend, the former Member of Parliament for Bexleyheath. He says:
I understand that you will be replying to an Adjournment Debate on Lockerbie next Wednesday introduced by
the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
I very much welcome this as it is such an important subject, especially as it is over eight and a half years since Pan Am 103 was blown up.
My Council is concerned that the current impasse in relations with Libya has had a detrimental effect on British-Libyan trade relations. This was a subject that I personally raised with Anthony Nelson, the previous Minister for Trade at the Department of Trade and Industry".


Indeed, I have raised this subject with my hon. Friends responsible for trade in both Houses of Parliament. I was assured by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, who made inquiries after an oral question in the House, that the Department's lawyers have not had access to the evidence that the Crown Office says it has.
For lawyers from one Government Department who are so intimately affected not to have seen the evidence that is in the hands of another Government Department raises an eyebrow. Doubtless all sorts of legalistic reasons will be produced, but it is not good when the interests of our country are so badly threatened by what may be a terrible mistake.
Furthermore, I want to raise with the Crown Office the case of Dr. David Fieldhouse. The background to the case is that, on 21 December 1988, Dr. David Fieldhouse, who has become a friend of mine, heard on his car radio that there was a major incident at Lockerbie, and immediately drove north in the expectation that he could be helpful.
Who is Dr. Fieldhouse? He comes from Bradford, and was the police surgeon of the city of Bradford for 14 years. He was considered responsible enough to be put in charge of a previous major incident—the Bradford footfall fire. He has had many ups and downs, and in my opinion has been treated abominably. On 22 June 1997, he wrote to the Prime Minister:
Dear Prime Minister,
As you will doubtless know from proceedings in the House of Commons over the past few years the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie terrorist bombing has left a lot of questions unanswered and lines of enquiry ignored or suspended.
I volunteered my services in Lockerbie shortly after hearing of the crash and, during the night and day following it, pronounced death in respect of 59 persons. In the immediate aftermath of the event and during the subsequent months 1 co-operated fully with the law enforcement agencies to provide details of the work which I had done. I was enabled to do this by notes taken at the time and my not inconsiderable experience as a Police Surgeon with West Yorkshire Police during the preceding fourteen years.
One of the very many things which have puzzled me since the event, and more particularly since the Fatal Accident Inquiry, is the apparent lack of concern to correlate the bodies which I recorded having found with other records made after mine"—
"after" is underlined.
This has led to one body (which I labelled DCF 12) not appearing to tie up with any of the ones subsequently listed as having been retrieved and examined by the Pathologists.
I am not sure that the transcript of the Fatal Accident Inquiry will give a very good indication how little attention was paid to this matter. I was at pains at the time of that Inquiry to reverse the discredit heaped upon me by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie by his dubious questioning of the Police".
Remember that that accusation—for such it is—of dubious questioning of the police at the fatal accident inquiry was made not by someone off the street, but by a police surgeon of 14 years' experience with extremely distinguished service at a previous major incident. When that is said in a letter to a British Prime Minister, the Departments have an obligation to comment on it, because the questioning was under oath.
Dr. Fieldhouse goes on:
from whom he received answers to questions which it seemed at the time were designed to hide the truth and, in the process, discredit me.
I made two determined attempts to see your predecessor to ask him a particular question, but I got no further than a Private Secretary. I can not ask that question of you. Would you be able to

find out if John Major actually received my letters to him—or if they were diverted by his staff who could have been under orders from others?
Other questions, inter-related, come to mind:
Do you think I am right to be concerned that the body details did not tally?
Do you think I am still right to be concerned at the way I was treated at the Fatal Accident Inquiry—notwithstanding that I received a full, written, formal apology from Sheriff Principal John S Mowatt in his Determination (page 36) for what had been said erroneously about me?
Do you think I am right to wonder if the above two points could in some way be relevant to the whole issue as to who perpetrated the offence?
Do you think that people of this Country, and in particular the relatives of the deceased, have a right to clarification of all these issues?
The relatives of the deceased, to whom I have become very close, certainly think that Dr. Fieldhouse deserves an answer. He continued:
If, in addition to the above, you are interested in knowing how this affair has impugned my integrity and severely dented my career I shall be pleased to meet you and put you in the picture. All is not what it seems—even now.
I wish you well in the forthcoming years.
There is a great deal to the story. Some of it appeared in a book, which I have treated with great caution, called "Trail of the Octopus" by the American agent Les Coleman. But there is a great deal of explanation to be given by the American authorities on the whole relationship between the Drug Enforcement Agency and the CIA and its hostage relations operations in Beirut at the time.
There is also the whole question of Major Charles McKee, and the feeling that there were certain people in key positions who never wanted Major McKee to get back to the United States to start complaining about them. All those matters bring us back to my request that there should be an investigation by the Metropolitan police. It is unreal to expect the Dumfries police to cope.
British companies are worried that they are not being allowed to compete on equal terms with other European companies. Many jobs are at stake. Problems that affect trade include the lack of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover and the problem of acquiring visas for local partners to come to Britain. That matter must be settled.
There is also, of course, the human aspect. The Minister has received a letter from the secretary of UK Families Flight 103, saying:
I am writing on behalf of U. K. Families Flight 103, the relatives and friends of those killed at Lockerbie, about the recent statements made in Germany by Abolhassem Mesbahi.
We believe that the Scottish Office has an obligation to convince the bereaved that the new information concerning Iran's connection with the bombing is being thoroughly and properly investigated. Can you give us evidence that urgent and appropriate action is being taken?
The secretary, Pamela Dix, had also written to Lord Hardie saying:
I am writing on behalf of UK Families Flight 103 concerning the recent activity in Germany. You will be aware of the allegations by the former Iranian intelligence officer, Abolhassem Mesbahi, that the bombing of the plane was ordered by the late Ayatollah Khomeini in revenge for the shooting down of the Iranian air bus in July 1988.


Given that this man's credibility has already been tested in a German court of law, where his testimony brought about the successful convictions of Iranian terrorists, we assume that the Scottish Office and the Dumfries and Galloway police are taking immediate steps to interview Mesbahi in Germany. If this has not yet been arranged, then we urge you to do so at the earliest possible opportunity. We expect the Crown Office response to be a proactive one in this regard.
The relatives would have been here had the Adjournment taken place at the usual time of 10 o'clock. I should be grateful for an undertaking that the Mesbahi information is being properly investigated.
A letter dated 18 July was sent to my hon. Friend the Minister from Martin Cadman of Norfolk, with whose Member of Parliament—my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner)—I went to see the Minister. He writes:
My son Bill, 32 was killed on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988.
I understand that you will reply for the Government in the adjournment debate on Lockerbie next Wednesday … My wife and I and other relatives have been trying since 1988 to learn the truth about Lockerbie. None of the inquiries which have been made public including those by the Air Accident Investigation Branch, the Fatal Accident Inquiry and the US President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism have revealed the whole truth. Nor were Ministers in the last Government forthcoming, including for example Douglas Hurd and Jeremy Hanley in their replies in adjournment debates.
My hon. Friend the Minister might like to know that it was on this subject that, for the only time since the war, a Foreign Secretary has replied to an Adjournment debate. I am not suggesting that it should be the Foreign Secretary on this occasion; I am merely pointing out that the previous Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, decided that the subject was so important that he should not leave it to one of his junior Ministers, but should instead reply himself.
The letter continued:
We were encouraged by the tone and much of the content of the reply by Foreign Office~Minister Tony Lloyd on 11 June this year.
Indeed, the relatives who are going to see my hon. Friend the Foreign Office Minister tomorrow at 4.15 pm will have a copy of the reply by my hon. Friend the Scottish Minister in their hands. I can tell my hon. Friend that two television teams are interested in the whole background to the issue, and are making in-depth investigations into the subject. Doubtless they will be approaching the Crown Office. The British public, let alone the relatives, are not uninterested in this matter.
Cadman goes on:
But he repeated some of the well worn phrases we had become used to, such as that it is not acceptable to allow the accused [Libyans] to dictate the terms and circumstances of their trial—a moment's thought shows that they have indeed dictated the terms and circumstances ever since the warrants were issued over six years ago in November 1991.
I don't know if you have been told the whole truth. People experienced in these matters have told me that very few people, mainly officials, are allowed to know. The rest are told only that there are some things that it is better that they do not know. I hope that you will not be put off by this sort of specious advice but will press for the whole truth so that you may reply properly and as fully as appropriate in the debate.
If only for ministerial self-preservation—I do not say this unkindly at all—I should have thought that it would have been wise for any Minister answering such debates to say, "Look. I am protecting my back. I am asking a

judge of the Court of Appeal, a European judge, Lord Hope or Lord Clyde, another Scottish Law Lord in Ordinary, to make the investigation." It is not asking a great deal.
Cadman goes on:
Ministers have the right to know. The public have the right to know. Above all, the relatives have the right to know. Early in 1989 my wife and I were interviewed by a man from the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist squad. He had a file of papers which included the post-mortem report on my son. I asked to see it. He said he was not supposed to show it to me. I asked him how could he as a stranger have a greater right to know how our son died than his parents. He had the courage and good sense to acknowledge this; and I hope that he felt the good effect on us of knowing how our son died. I hope that you will appreciate the force of this argument.
We do not need to be protected from the truth. But we should be protected from being told lies. We were told lies by the police witness at the Fatal Accident Inquiry. We should also be protected from not being told the truth. We did not get an answer at the FAI to why our son's body was left out in a field at Tundergarth from when he was seen by the doctor who pronounced him dead on the 22nd December 1988 until his body was removed to a mortuary on the 24th.
I acknowledge at this stage the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), who, in the short time that he has been here, has shown an estimable interest in this difficult matter. I hope that Madam Speaker has given her permission, as I have, that he should contribute to the debate.
Cadman goes on:
We did not get a straight answer to why our son's death certificate was dated 24th December. (It was subsequently changed to the 22nd after the FAI). Who gave the orders not to move the bodies? What was the role of the Americans on the ground in the immediate aftermath?
Cadman should get an answer to those questions. He says:
Our right to the truth should not be denied by any lingering unethical element in the British government's relations with the US government. We hope that the present Government is not deterred by whatever we believe persuaded the previous Government to conspire with the US Government not to reveal the truth.
You will know that new evidence has recently come to light from Germany implicating Iran. You and your colleagues may agree with us that the lack of progress in resolving this case is alone enough to warrant a new, independent, and far-reaching inquiry into all the circumstances of the bombing, including possible motives for it.
My main purpose in writing to you is to urge you to announce the setting up of such an inquiry in the debate next Wednesday. If this is not possible, please bring this letter to the attention of Lord Hardie to whom I have already written.
I do not know what attention is being given to such letters.
I asked the Prime Minister
what response he has sent to the letter of 22 June to him from ex-police surgeon Dr. David Fieldhouse of Bradford, about the circumstances of the body count after the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.
The Prime Minister replied:
Dr. Fieldhouse's letter is being studied carefully. A reply will be sent shortly."—[Official Report, 7 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 316.]
The Department will forgive me if a reply has already been sent, but it has not yet been received. I do not know what studying these letters actually means, other than a put-off. The time has come when they have to be answered.
When I saw him, the Lord Advocate undertook that he would discuss seriously with the Foreign Office what the results of all the deliberations were going to be.
For reasons that I perfectly understand, a meeting offered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at 9 o'clock this morning had to be postponed, and, at his request, I have been asked to see him on this subject at 6 o'clock tomorrow night, but I draw to the attention of the Crown Office the sort of problems that the Foreign Office has.
Frankly, the Foreign Office has been put in a difficult position. Even Douglas Hurd said to me—I think that he will excuse my repeating this, not that it was particularly a secret—in the corridors of the House, "Look: you must understand that a British Foreign Secretary cannot tell the Crown Office what to do and demand explanations from it." So the Crown Office should know exactly the situation that the Foreign Office faces.
Faced with a letter from the ambassador and permanent observer for the League of Arab States to the United Nations, Dr. Hussein A. Hassouna, and the ambassador and permanent observer for the Organisation of African Unity to the United Nations, Mr. Ibrahima Sy, the Foreign Office says:
We have the honour to refer to the joint letter dated 27 June 1997 of the Permanent Observer for the League of Arab States and the Permanent Observer for the Organisation of African Unity to the United Nations … enclosing a joint letter from the Secretaries-General of those two organisations relating to the question of the sanctions against Libya.
The letter of the Secretaries-General once again tries to misrepresent the question of Libya as a dispute between Libya and two countries. This is not the case. The sanctions imposed on Libya in Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) were as a result of the Libyan Government's refusal to comply with obligations which had been required of it by the unanimous decision of the Security Council in resolution 731 (1992). The question which the Council continues to address, therefore, is not a dispute between a few States, but the matter of Libya's continued defiance of a unanimous and binding decision of the Security Council.
We regret that the letter of the Secretaries-General of the Organisation of African Unity and the Arab League does not mention the existence of any of the Security Council resolutions relating to Libya, nor does it mention Libya's failure to comply with them. Instead the Secretaries-General repeat earlier proposals for trial of the Lockerbie accused in a venue outside Scotland or the United States, proposals which do not conform to the requirements of the relevant Security Council resolutions. We do not believe that Council decisions should be a matter of negotiation; they should be obeyed in full.
The Government of Libya knows that for the sanctions against it to be swiftly lifted, all it needs to do is comply with the Council's resolutions. Yet it continues to refuse to take such a step. The first objective of all Member States and Regional Organisations interested in seeing an end to this matter should be to persuade the Government of Libya to fulfil its obligations so that sanctions can be lifted and the authority of the Council be upheld.
In the meantime we have taken note of the proposals in the joint letter of the Secretaries-General relating to humanitarian flights. Resolution 748 (1992) of course already contains provisions for the Libyans to apply to the Committee established pursuant to that resolution for special dispensation for humanitarian flights. We would like to reiterate our willingness to continue to consider such applications, as provided for in resolution 748 (1992) which does not limit humanitarian needs to medical evacuations. In addition, for the last three years the Committee has permitted flights to the Haj, thus facilitating travel by Libyan citizens to undertake this act of religious devotion. We see no reason why this practice should not continue.
The whole trouble with that is that, in fact, Libyans who used to come here cannot get medical aid. A great deal of hardship is involved.
I refer to the letter dated 26 June 1997 from the permanent observers of the League of Arab States and the OAU:
Pursuant to Article 54 of the Charter of the United Nations, we have the honour to enclose herewith a joint letter signed by His Excellency Dr. Ahmed Esmat Abdel Meguid, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, and His Excellency Mr. Salim Ahmed Salim, Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity, concerning the efforts of the two organizations to find a peaceful and just solution to the dispute between the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United States of America and the United Kingdom".
What all that amounts to, surely, as Lord Fraser was asked by me all those years ago, is that at least our lawyers should talk to their lawyers. That is what they want.
A letter dated 19 June 1997 from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States and the Secretary-General of the OAU says:
As a follow-up to the efforts being deployed individually and jointly by the League of Arab States and the Organization of African Unity to find a peaceful and just solution to the dispute between the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United States of America and Great Britain, and in conformity with the decision of the two organizations to coordinate both Arab and African efforts aimed at contributing to the process of finding a lasting solution to the dispute, we have the honour to inform you that the League of Arab States and the Organization of African Unity have, in this regard, agreed as follows:
FIRST: To call upon the Security Council to convene a special meeting in order to consider the following specific proposals, one of which could be agreed upon as a basis for a solution:

(i) Hold the trial of the two suspects in a third and neutral country to be determined by the Security Council;
(ii) Have the two suspects tried by Scottish judges at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, in accordance with the Scottish Law;
(iii) Establishment of a special criminal tribunal at the ICJ headquarters in The Hague to try the two suspects.

SECOND: Pending the final and peaceful solution of the crisis and the adoption of one of the above-mentioned proposals, we urge the Security Council to undertake the following measures which, we believe, will go a long way in mitigating the severe impact of the air embargo, by exempting flights that may be run by Libyan authorities:

(i) Flights for humanitarian purposes of medical treatment and the importation of medicines;
(ii) Special flights to send material assistance from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to African countries;
(iii) Flights of religious purpose;
(iv) Flights related to participation in official missions."

Like British industry, the two Secretaries-General complain bitterly of the difficulty of getting in and out of Libya. What does it all boil down to? It boils down to a policy based on evidence that is at best flimsy and perhaps non-existent.
I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 July:
pursuant to his oral answer of 16 July, Official Report, columns 387–88, in reference to the letter from Alain Dejammet, Stephen Gomersall and Bill Richardson permanent representatives of France, the United Kingdom and the USA, to the President of the Security Council, what recent review of the evidence relating to the Lockerbie case has been conducted by the UN Security Council.
The reply from my right hon. Friend said:
None. It is not the Security Council's job to do so. The evidence is held by the national investigating and prosecuting authorities and is not in the public domain."—[Official Report, 22 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 556.]


The UN really ought to be a bit discerning about the material on which it bases its own policies. Frankly, it is taking the word of the British Government, and the British Government are taking the word of the Crown Office. Some of us think, for reasons that have taken an inordinate length of time to describe—I do not see how else to bring the matter home after 12 Adjournment debates—that the Government should take action to ascertain the validity of the evidence.
I had hoped that, on election to office, my right hon. and hon. Friends would bring new minds to this subject. They have had some time to do so. The faults, if there be any, lay with their predecessors. I am not here to make yah-boo party points; I am asking very, very little. Distinguished lawyers should take a look at what other lawyers have decided and done.
I end with the statement of Paul Foot in The Guardian this week, which is headed "The Injustices Darkening Our Skies". It refers first to the German evidence, when it says:
The Foreign Office greeted last week's Der Spiegel scoop about the Lockerbie bombing with its familiar mix of embarrassment and silence.
I hope that, sooner rather than later, there will be some comment on the German evidence.
Foot ended by saying:
The new Foreign Office Minister Tony Lloyd studiously copied his Tory predecessors by expressing his deep concern while stopping well short of any new initiative. The notion that all these inquiries were conducted in such a way that a particular result would be arrived at,' he said, 'would be a fantastic coincidence or a fantastic conspiracy.' Precisely. Take your pick.
The purpose of my long, long speech that chance has made possible tonight is that my right hon. and hon. Friends should be serious about some new initiative. I look forward to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has to say.

Mr. Russell Brown: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for allowing me to take part in this debate and for the mountains of information that he has passed to me which he has accumulated over some considerable time. I intend to be brief. My hon. Friend has expressed his great concern about the whole issue in significant detail.
I should like to air the issue from the perspective of my constituents and to deal with what they want, because they want the chapter of the entire sad tragedy to be closed. There are, however, families in my constituency—as there are in America and elsewhere in the United Kingdom— who want justice to be done.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has complimented Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. I should admit that I served as a member of the Dumfries and Galloway police authority for 11 years, four of which were as its chairman. I should add that my term as chairman was served after the Lockerbie tragedy. I have every faith in Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. Although it is the smallest force in Scotland, it is, none the less, an excellence force.
I am confident that all the evidence that has become available in recent months and years has been made available to Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. I also have every confidence that it has performed its role as an enforcement authority by investigating all the evidence.
I appreciate that there is a feeling that the tragedy is slipping away from us. I know full well that the American families think of next year—the tragedy's 10th anniversary—as a significant watershed. I can only imagine the frustration that those families feel, although I know full well the frustration that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow feels after having spent many hours delving into what he regards as evidence. He has spent many hours investigating the matter and believes that he has formed a picture of what really happened.
My inquiries indicate that all the evidence produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and by other parties has been examined and investigated by those with a duty to do so. I think that he and I agree on two matters: we want justice to be done, and we want improved relations with the Arab world, with the consequent benefits for many United Kingdom industries and companies.
I am sure, however, that I do not have to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that our new Labour Government have been in power for only 12 weeks. We require time to examine closely what has happened over the past eight and a half years. I believe that now is not the time to hand over all of the relevant information to a third party or to third parties. A new Government will provide an opportunity to move the matter forward.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend said that I want information to be handed over to third parties. I am not sure that "third parties" is how one would describe Judge Edward, Lord Clyde, Lord Hope, a Lord Justice of Appeal, in England, or a senior European judge. They are not simply "third parties".

Mr. Brown: I am referring to involvement by another investigative authority—the Metropolitan police— although I include also some of the people eminent in the legal system mentioned by my hon. Friend.
As I said, the new Labour Government provide an opportunity. There is also an opportunity for the Libyan authorities themselves to seize upon that opportunity, because it is a two-way process. I believe that the suspects will receive a trial if the opportunity arises. As I said in my maiden speech, two or three weeks ago, I firmly believe in the Scottish legal system and that a fair trial can be conducted in Scotland. We now need all those who have spent so much time on the matter to pull together, to impress on the Libyan Government the fact that the two suspects must be handed over so that they can receive that fair trial.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow for giving me an opportunity to speak briefly in this debate.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I am pleased to be able to reply to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and I am grateful for his usual courtesy in having given advance notice of the main issues that he planned to raise in this— his 14th—debate on the Lockerbie criminal investigation. He mentioned 11 or 12 debates, but we have factually established that the total is 14. In his most recent


Adjournment debate, he said that he must be extremely lucky to have secured such a debate. He must have an exceptionally lucky star, because that debate was only six weeks ago. I share with him, however, an appreciation of the seriousness of the issue and of the debate.
As this is the first such debate to which I have responded, I should like to express my deepest sympathy for all those who lost friends or family in that terrible outrage on 21 December 1988. I also pay tribute to the unprecedented efforts of those who assisted at the disaster site and to the work of the investigative agencies involved, particularly Dumfries and Galloway constabulary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow suggested, however, that it is no longer realistic for that police force to continue to conduct the investigation, which it began on 21 December 1988. The investigation came to be conducted by Scotland's smallest police force for the simple reason that the crime was committed in that police area. There are contingency plans—to request and obtain the assistance of other police forces—in place between police forces when dealing with such major incidents. I am sure that he appreciates that.
In response to the Lockerbie incident, the then chief constable, John Boyd, put that mutual aid plan into operation—so that, by the middle of the week after the occurrence of the disaster, more than 1,000 police officers from 11 police forces, both from Scotland and England, were involved in the investigation. The Metropolitan police was one of the police forces so involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow should, however, note that it became a criminal investigation once—on 28 December 1988—the cause of the crash was confirmed to be the result of the detonation of a bomb. From that point onwards, responsibility for investigation and prosecution of the crime became that of the then Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmylie. In exercising his responsibility for the prosecution of crime in Scotland, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is empowered by statute to give instructions to the chief constable on the investigation and reporting of offences.
The statutory relationship between the prosecuting and investigating authorities is reflected in the very high level of consultation between them on the case over the years, in relation to inquiries both in the United Kingdom and in foreign jurisdictions that required the issue of letters of request. As was said in reply to the fifth debate on the topic initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, on 13 December 1994, the procurator fiscal for Dumfries worked full time on the Lockerbie case from the date of the event until after issue of the warrants. For most of that time, he shared accommodation with the police.
During the investigation, members of the investigating team visited no fewer than 23 countries to pursue criminal inquiries. In total, during the criminal inquiry, some 70 countries made inquiries on behalf of the investigating authorities. The Dumfries and Galloway constabulary was able to pursue those inquiries as efficiently as any other police force—with such assistance as was necessary from other police forces—and remains able to call upon such assistance when the circumstances so dictate.
I think that it is vitally important—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow will agree—to recognise the level of co-operation offered by and obtained from other

police forces. Moreover, the international dimension has been and continues to be crucial to the case. It is an active and live aspect of the investigation.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend write to me on the following subject? Was there any point in time at which the Scottish police would have liked to interview certain persons in Germany, but, for some reason or other, it was made difficult for them to do so by the German police? I do not expect him to answer that question off the top of his head, but I would like a letter on the subject.

Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend is pursuing this matter intensely and he must have some foresight about what I am going to say. If he is unhappy with my response, I shall wish to investigate further and write to him.
Particular mention should be made of the relationship that was established between the German police—the BKA—and the Scottish police and, indeed, between Scottish prosecutors and their German counterparts. There has in the past been unwarranted criticism of the level of co-operation between the Scottish and German investigating authorities. It has always been the firm policy of the Lord Advocate not to give details of investigative steps that are taken. No criminal investigation could be properly pursued where details of what steps had been taken were disclosed or heralded in advance. However, in relation to the co-operation between the Scottish police and their German counterparts, I remind my hon. Friend that the then Foreign Secretary on 1 February 1995, in view of the criticism to which I have referred, took the unprecedented step of confirming that requests were made for the interview of two individuals in Germany, that such requests were granted and that, indeed, Scottish police officers were present during those interviews. That might serve as one example of the manner in which relevant lines of inquiry can be pursued in the course of the criminal investigation. My hon. Friend's question perhaps ranged wider than that point, and I am happy to put on record the relationships that have existed between the Dumfries and Galloway police and other police authorities.

Mr. Dalyell: If the Scottish police were present on occasions as observers, was there any occasion when they were denied the opportunity to interview certain persons? At some point, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that an approach has been made to the public prosecutor's office in Frankfurt in the past few weeks to hold talks about what it is alleged has emerged?

Mr. McLeish: I have touched on the topic of the relationships between the German authorities and the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. My hon. Friend asked whether access had been denied on any occasion. On that point, I shall write to my hon. Friend. I shall deal later with my hon. Friend's second point about the most recent revelations.
I should stress the calibre of officers involved in the inquiry. For example, the senior investigating officer, who was in post between the date of the disaster and the beginning of 1990, moved on to become the chief constable for the largest police force in Scotland. Other senior officers from other police forces were also closely involved in the investigation. Against that background, my hon. Friend has suggested that responsibility for the


investigation should be transferred to the Metropolitan police from Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. It is unfair to Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, and to other police officers who have contributed over the years to the investigation, some of whom are now very senior indeed, to make such a suggestion. It would be incompatible with the system of criminal investigation in Scotland and, frankly, there is no good reason to change at this point.

Mr. Dalyell: Some of us think that there is a good reason why we should make that change. A major crime has not been solved after eight and a half years. Added to that, our country is being greatly damaged, economically and politically, in the Arab world. We should not be legalistic about that after all this time. If this were a normal crime, I would not be raising these points or challenging what my hon. Friend has said. However, the circumstances are extraordinary.

Mr. McLeish: I shall touch on the points that my hon. Friend has raised about the wider international significance. He suggested that there should be an external review of the evidence held by the prosecuting authorities by an English or European judge. He also suggested that a fresh mind is required. I am sure that there is no suggestion that the Lord Advocate is unable to assess accurately the sufficiency of the evidence or, worse, that his assessment of the case is not impartial.
The Lord Advocate is alone responsible for the prosecution of crime in Scotland. He has already given an assurance, on 25 June 1997 in another place, that he is satisfied on the information available to him that there is no reason not to proceed with the petition warrants issued in respect of the two Libyans accused. I am unclear on what basis it is being suggested that his assessment of the evidence should be reviewed by someone who may not be qualified in Scots criminal law and who would certainly not be accountable for the prosecution of the crime in Scotland. I point out that no fewer than four Lords Advocate, as my hon. Friend mentioned, from two different Administrations, have given full consideration to the totality of the evidence against the two accused. They have each concluded independently that the evidence justifies the proceedings against the two Libyans accused.

Mr. Dalyell: I went into the circumstances of the first Lord Advocate at inordinate length. The difficulty is, humanly speaking, that once a predecessor has taken a decision on a matter so complex, one would have to be a professor of Lockerbie studies to change it. Lords Advocate have many other matters to deal with and I wonder whether they can really go into detail that might be required to overturn a predecessor's judgment. John Stuart Mill had a phrase about the
vested interests of the mind".
Even in the light of all the doubts that have been raised, if a fresh mind—such as Lord Hope, Lord Clyde, Judge Edward, an English judge from the Court of Appeal or a European judge—came to the conclusion that the Crown Office had done exactly what it says it has, I would undertake to shut up on that subject.

Mr. McLeish: I have made the point that, based on the information, discussions, analysis and continuing review

in the Crown Office, there is a reason for proceeding with the petition warrants issued in respect of the two Libyans accused. That judgment is predicated on the basis that evidence exists that would bring those two to trial. In a sense, I am confirming the view—and reinforcing the point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to my hon. Friend—that there is no evidence that we need an outside person to come in and take a fresh look at. There is evidence that suggests we should proceed to prosecute the two Libyans, and that is the basis of the current debate.

Mr. Dalyell: May I gently say to my hon. Friend that, in the impossible event that I were Lord Advocate and knew that I had been counsel in a highly controversial fatal accident inquiry, I would have wanted to protect my own reputation—to put it at its lowest—and have someone come in and look at the matter? The problem is not only a question of the actuality, but the perception of the situation. The fact is that the present Lord Advocate played a controversial part in the fatal accident inquiry. That is a reason for having a fresh mind to consider the issue. What can be the difficulty in bringing in Lord Hope, Lord Clyde or Judge Edward? Those are not people who would make mischief.

Mr. McLeish: I think that my hon. Friend would agree with the logic of my comment in suggesting that we have the evidence to justify the proceedings against the two Libyans accused. Is it not the case that the issue now is that the two Libyans should be released by Libya, so that due process can take place? It is important to reinforce the points that have been made about the past four Lords Advocate and the continuing involvement of the Crown Office.
As I have already said, the judgment is that there is no need to ensure that the issue is widened to the independent scrutiny that my hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. Dalyell: Dear oh dear. It is whistling in the wind to think that the Libyans will be brought to a British court. President Mandela spent 40 minutes of his hour with the British Prime Minister on the subject. There is no chance of their coming to a British court, given the situation in the Arab world. That is why my hon. Friend should be getting Foreign Office advice.

Mr. McLeish: I shall refer to further points that my hon. Friend has made later.
My hon. Friend asked what steps are being taken to investigate the recent allegations concerning statements from the office for islamic propaganda and statements reported in Der Spiegel magazine from the person named as Abolhassem Mesbahi. As I have already said, and as I told my hon. Friend in my written reply to him on 16 July 1997, it is the firm policy of the prosecuting and investigating authorities not to disclose details of investigative steps. The prosecuting and investigating authorities are, of course, acutely aware of their duty to investigate exculpatory evidence no less vigorously than incriminatory evidence. They take that duty seriously. While details of investigative steps cannot be given, all appropriate steps are taken in the discharge of that duty. Further than that I cannot go.
Any assertion that the refusal to disclose what steps are being taken is an excuse for inaction is not correct. Prosecuting and investigating authorities are not in the


habit of proclaiming to all and sundry what steps they propose to take in pursuance of whatever course of action they deem to be appropriate. Equally, neither I nor the prosecuting and investigating authorities can be drawn into discussion or disclosure of details of the evidence because of the real danger of prejudicing the prospects of a fair trial for the two accused.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend used the phrase, "all and sundry". If he or I had lost a son or a daughter, we would think that we were entitled to know, as Dr. Jim Swire vehemently asks, whether the authorities had gone to see those at Der Spiegel or talked to the public prosecutor in Frankfurt. If the authorities say that they cannot disclose such details, we must be forgiven for thinking that a lot of people are sitting on their proverbial backsides. I am afraid that that is the perception.

Mr. McLeish: I do not think that that can logically be drawn from what I have just said. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts my sincerity. I have confirmed that the issue is serious. My hon. Friend has been close to many people involved and has a much greater appreciation of the issues than I could possibly have. The fact that evidence and details of the investigation cannot be released into the public domain should not be taken as a sign of inaction from the Crown Office or the Government or an indication that we are not taking vigorous steps to pursue the case.
My hon. Friend, along with others, may consider that the prosecuting authorities do not have sufficient evidence to prosecute the case against the two accused. Such assessments are made in a vacuum because the details of the evidence cannot be disclosed publicly.
My hon. Friend mentioned the impact that the United Nations Security Council sanctions are having on Libya and on British commercial interests. It is more than five and a half years since the Libyan Government were called on to surrender their two nationals for trial in Scotland or the United States. The demands for surrender are backed by United Nations Security Council sanctions, two of which are mandatory. However, surrender of the two accused for trial in Scotland or the US would transform the situation on sanctions. They can be lifted as soon as the requirements of the resolutions are fully complied with. We cannot arrange for Libya to fulfil those requirements—that is a matter for the Libyan Government. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend on 17 July, the Government will try every avenue to make progress in this matter, but the onus is on Libya to comply with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The United Nations Security Council sanctions were renewed as recently as 10 July 1997 and the Government believe that they should remain in place until they are complied with. Anyone with an interest in resolving the matter should seek to encourage Libya to comply in full with the resolutions.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to put it on record that I have tried, as have some parliamentary colleagues, to encourage the Libyans. I have told them that I believe that they would get a fair trial in Edinburgh. I am proud of Scottish justice, but one has to consider the situation from the Arab African point of view. They are not going to come to Scotland for trial. My hon. Friend the Minister is younger than me, but we shall both be kicking up the

daisies before the matter is resolved if we stick to a policy of the onus being entirely on Libya. The problem will go on and on.

Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend will appreciate that my comment should not be taken as a suggestion that he and others have not tried to get Libya to comply in full with the resolutions. I appreciate what he has said for the record.
Once the accused had appeared before the court, a full disclosure of the evidence against them would be made available to the defence in this case as in any other case. That disclosure would include not only the evidence to be led in proof of the charges against the two accused, but any evidence uncovered during the investigation that was consistent with their innocence. The trial could then proceed before a jury, untrammelled by premature disclosures of the evidence and in a forum in which the accused were properly represented and given an opportunity to test the strength of the evidence against them. That is the proper course to follow in deliberating on the guilt or innocence of anyone charged with a crime. With all due respect to my hon. Friend—I hope that he will acknowledge the spirit of this suggestion—the Floor of the House is not the proper place to be entering into discussion concerning the evidence in the case against the two accused or the sufficiency of that evidence.
I am aware that my comments today will provide little comfort to my hon. Friend or to those who lost friends or relatives as a result of this terrible crime. I am aware that the relatives desire truth and justice.

Mr. Dalyell: We raised the matter of what is being said in the holy city of Qom in Iran and the evidence produced by Stephen Breen of The Scotsman. I must be candid with my hon. Friend. I treat that with some caution, because some Iranian groups may well have wished to claim credit for that which they did not do. I understand that, given the volatile nature of what goes on in the Islamic Republic of Iran, all sorts of things may have happened. We are entitled to ask what steps are being taken to find out the truth or falsehood of what is said. The Dumfries and Galloway police do not have all the facilities to find out what happened without strong Foreign Office translation support. However, we really ought to find out what happened.

Mr. McLeish: I shall deal with that before I sit down.
If the prosecuting authorities were to disclose the details of the evidence at this juncture, all hope of there being a criminal trial of the two accused would be extinguished. The rightful expectation that justice be done could not be met.
There have, of course, been suggestions that the trial should proceed in a third country. My hon. Friend must by now be aware that we have objections to that in principle and in practice. First, the acceptance of a trial in a third country would be tantamount to allowing suspected terrorists to dictate where and by whom they should be tried for the crime of which they stand accused. Secondly, it would imply that we accepted the argument that the accused could not get a fair trial in Scotland. My hon. Friend has put on record his compliments to the quality of justice in Scotland. As long ago as September 1993, the Libyans accepted assurances delivered through


the UN Secretary-General that trial in Scotland was fair. Thirdly, the United Nations Security Council resolutions require that the accused be delivered for trial in Scotland or the United States and not elsewhere. Fourthly, there would be enormous practical and legal difficulties in attempting to establish a trial outwith Scotland or the United States.
Finally, we do not believe that the Libyans intend that any such trial should take place. They have in the past stated that they are powerless to make the accused leave Libya for trial in Scotland or the United States in the absence of an extradition treaty with either of those countries. Equally, however, we must ask what powers they have to compel the attendance of their two nationals should any third country trial be set up in, for example, The Hague when there is no extradition agreement between Libya and the Netherlands.
On the suggestions that the two Libyan suspects be tried at The Hague, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that there is no general international criminal court. The Bosnian and Rwandan tribunals were established because of the inability of the countries involved to hold a fair trial. I submit that that is not so in relation to the Lockerbie case.
I am aware that the current sanctions regime may be having an impact on the life of ordinary Libyan citizens, but the Government cannot accept that the blame for this situation should lie at the door of the Security Council or us.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend said that the Government cannot accept the blame. The truth is that the Government are being blamed along with the American Government, who may be the real motivators in all this. They are being blamed by most of the Arab world, almost the whole of Africa, President Mandela and a great many people in this country who have studied this issue. All the letters from the careful Edinburgh lawyers should be taken into account. To be blunt, this Administration, like the last Administration, are in cloud cuckoo land.

Mr. McLeish: My remarks are predicated on two simple points. First, we have the evidence to prosecute and pursue the two Libyans and, secondly, there are international pressures and sanctions which are being brought to bear on Libya to release the suspects. Although we could be criticised and attacked, logic suggests that the matter could be resolved by the Libyans presenting the two suspects and a trial taking place. Whether they are innocent or guilty is for the trial to establish.
The main reasons for the deprivation of the Libyan people go much wider than has been suggested. There is no objective justification for easing up on the UN sanctions regime before Libya has complied with the requirements of the Security Council resolutions.
I also share my hon. Friend's concern that British business may be losing out on a valuable export market. Once again, in our judgment the fault lies with the Libyan Government. It must also be remembered that our difficulties with the Libyan Government extend back to beyond Lockerbie to the murder of WPC Fletcher in April 1984. My hon. Friend has discussed that matter tonight.

Mr. Dalyell: The issue of WPC Fletcher is thrown into doubt by the three Fulcrum programmes "Murder at

St James's". I plead with the Crown Office—television speculation is one thing, but Bernard Knight, the Home Office pathologist, said that the Government's explanation is impossible; Hugh Thomas, the consultant surgeon in Belfast, said that the bullets could not have entered in that way; and George Stiles, a ballistics expert, said that he does not believe that it could have happened in that way.
The Minister should remember that David Veness sat in his office in Scotland Yard last Thursday and told me that they were re-analysing the Yvonne Fletcher case. If Scotland Yard has sufficient doubt to re-analyse, how can one base a major foreign policy issue on such flimsy evidence? It is all very well to say, "Bring the Libyans," but I went on at inordinate length to explain why serious people have the gravest doubts about whether the Libyans did it in the first place. I realise that the Minister is in a difficult position—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I understand the complexities of the debate and the Minister has been generous in giving way, but I think that, at this stage, interventions should be a little briefer.

Mr. Dalyell: Given the complexity and doubts involved, it is building a major foreign policy on shifting sands.

Mr. McLeish: I may be doing a number of things tonight, but I am not shifting sands.

Mr. Dalyell: Building on shifting sands.

Mr. McLeish: I think that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I have given the up-to-date position and I have tried to deal with the concerns that have been expressed.
I was saying that it would be wrong to allow purely commercial considerations to dictate the policy we adopt on sensitive issues such as these. I do not think for a minute that that is the thrust of my hon. Friend's contribution.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must make it clear that I did not say that my hon. Friend was shifting sands. I would not insult him because he has been generous in giving way and I appreciate that a great deal. It is a hard-working reply and I appreciate what he has done. I am saying that the policy was built on shifting sands in relation to the Yvonne Fletcher and Lockerbie evidence. I would not insult him—I do not feel like that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. McLeish: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's sincere and generous comments.
As my hon. Friend has said, I had a letter from U. K. Families Flight 103. It was about Abolhassem Mesbahi and the current revelations. I shall be frank; the latest revelations are being thoroughly investigated by the Crown Office.
We cannot go into detail about the investigations but I can reassure my hon. Friend that the matter is being dealt with urgently in the Crown Office. That point will be made to the families who have written to me. I wanted to wait until after the debate before speaking to them.
My hon. Friend referred to the response from Downing street by Philip Barton. In that letter, we make the point that
The investigation remains open and the prosecuting and investigating authorities will consider any evidence brought to their attention.
As is always the case with these debates and the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, all of this evening's proceedings will have been recorded and all of the material will be with the Crown Office. I shall certainly want all the letters that I have received during this period to be given to the Crown Office. That is not only a courtesy to my hon. Friend but essential and necessary in the circumstances of this evening's debate.
I shall conclude on that, hoping that some of the concerns I have raised—

Mr. Dalyell: Before he concludes, I should like to thank my hon. Friend, on the record, for the tone of his

reply, which is somewhat different from some—not all—of the replies I have received. I thank him very much for the work that he has put into this matter during a busy period.

Mr. McLeish: I am again grateful to my hon. Friend. When at the Dispatch Box one has responsibilities but also an opportunity to be sincere, especially in relation to a crime as heinous as the one we are discussing.
In summary, I shall respond to U. K. Families Flight 103 and I shall pass the appropriate material that I have received in the past few days to the Crown Office and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. I am sure that there will be further discussions between me and my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow and for Dumfries (Mr. Brown).

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Nine o'clock.